I'm calling out the Stansbury critics/haters.

[DawgatAuburn]

Based on that, our only real way of judging him is to compare his record to previous results at our school, then to compare our school's current commitment (financial and otherwise) to basketball vs. the rest of the schools in the country, and then to assess his overall performance against those criteria. His record speaks for itself and I find it highly unlikely that any but the very best college coaches in the country could do better for as long. We'll never know, but I tend to think they most would have a hard time matching Rick's record, even if he can't say freshmen without an S.</p>

Quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I have ever read. It's like a cross between jackbaddawg and Bruiser combined into one person.

What do previous results at MSU have to do with anything? So if you have always sucked, then you will always suck? If you have always been good then you will forevermore be good?

Financial and otherwise commitment? Our financial is pretty strong. I don't know what "otherwise" means.

And please Dr. Statistics, please assess Rick's performance against those criteria. Show your work so we can follow what in the world you are babbling about.

 

[She Mate Me]

had to be an *** and pull me back into this thread.

I noticed you gave absolutely no facts for anything in your post, but now you want me to? Not going to waste my Sunday afternoon that way. There are plenty of facts throughout this thread to support Stansbury's accomplishments.

My basic premise is that Stans has done a fine job with a pretty limited budget in a program where it is difficult to build a consistent winner. If you think previous results reflect nothing about the difficulty of winning in a particular place then I would just say I disagree and find that pretty damn "nonsensical" (good word by the way).</p>

Give me a statistic to tell me that our financial commitment to basketball is stronger than our results under Stans have been. I like Ken Pomeroy's ratings so I went to his site and looked at State's season ending power rating for the last ten years. Our median final rating for the last 10 years is in the range of 34th with a high of 13 and a low of 98. If our athletic spending on basketball is in the top 40 in the country I will be surprised, but maybe it is. If it is not, then I think that says Stans is doing a fine job under the circumstances.

Unless you give me some facts that matter rather than just running off at the keyboard, I could really care less what you type or what your opinion is because it is supported by nothing more than your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room.</p>

</p>

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

nm

 

[DawgatAuburn]

had to be an *** and pull me back into this thread.

I noticed you gave absolutely no facts for anything in your post, but now you want me to? Not going to waste my Sunday afternoon that way. There are plenty of facts throughout this thread to support Stansbury's accomplishments.

My basic premise is that Stans has done a fine job with a pretty limited budget in a program where it is difficult to build a consistent winner. If you think previous results reflect nothing about the difficulty of winning in a particular place then I would just say I disagree and find that pretty damn "nonsensical" (good word by the way).</p>

Give me a statistic to tell me that our financial commitment to basketball is stronger than our results under Stans have been. I like Ken Pomeroy's ratings so I went to his site and looked at State's season ending power rating for the last ten years. Our median final rating for the last 10 years is in the range of 34th with a high of 13 and a low of 98. If our athletic spending on basketball is in the top 40 in the country I will be surprised, but maybe it is. If it is not, then I think that says Stans is doing a fine job under the circumstances.

Unless you give me some facts that matter rather than just running off at the keyboard, I could really care less what you type or what your opinion is because it is supported by nothing more than your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room.</p>

You're the one who made all the claims dude, not me. I'm not looking up any facts or developing a formula to dispute your baseless babble.

 

[She Mate Me]

I'm just saying that Stans has done a good job and his job should not be considered in jeopardy in any way.

 

[dawgstudent]

job is in jeopardy right now. But if we don't make the tourney the next 2 years, his job should be in jeopardy. 4 out of 5 years with no tourney appearances if he doesn't make it in the next 2 are about as solid of facts as you can get.

 

[jbulldog]

7. Comments on coaching and or playing are welcome no matter what your experience level in any sport.</p>

 

[Maroon Eagle]

...everyone has opinions; thus, they're qualified.

Edit to add: Ah, I see HD gave jbulldog's message the Rule 7 edit.

 

[jfs131]

We underachieve every year which builds frustration more. We have had elite talent with Stans so it's about time we make a run in the NCAAs or other options need to be looked at

 

[dpaul798]

do you really think stansbury is the only guy around that can get talent to starkville? thats pretty short-sighted...

 

[dpaul798]

Someone got that talent here. We fire Stansbury, we no longer get that talent. Just letting you know - you better be careful what you ask for - you just might get it. Ask Arkansas fans right now.

And I guess every year in our school history except those 9 years in which we made the tournament were "down" years.

stansbury is the ONLY guy who can get talent to starkville? tell me you arent short-sighted enough to believe that