the KY loss isn't a big deal. It's the 3 before Kentucky that are killing us. Now it just boils down to if this team makes the tourney or not in regards to Stansbury being our coach for next season.
It all boils down to this...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
The loss was frustrating because the blown lead resembled too many other games this season. But if you just remember that KY is #1 for a pretty good reason, you'll recagnize that they would have come back on most teams in the second half. Being outscored at the end by 16 points over 4 minutes was bad but would have been absolutely terrible if this had been just about any other SEC team. I'm not completely excusing our play last night, but if you were comfortable about us winning the game as we headed into the locker room at the half, then you haven't watched enough MSU or KY basketball this season. The three losses prior to last night are the real story and if Stans is shown the door it will be for those losses, not last night.
Even if we had one 2 of the 3, things would be different. I don't get too worked up over basketball because the majority of the time at least seven kids on your team think they are heading to "the league" and they are using college as a place to "showcase" their talents. That and I can't bare to watch us pass the ball around the perimeter constantly until someone jacks up a bad three point attempt. I guess that is a lack of offensive game plan. I admittedly don't know a lot about basketball.
It is still underachieving and not doing your job in my opinion. I know it won't happen but he has failed at his job up to this point.
I appreciate everything the man has done for MSU basketball, but I'm ready and willing to take the chance at moving to the next level.
I appreciate everything the man has done for MSU basketball, but I'm ready and willing to take the chance at moving to the next level.
IF stricklin told stansbury no matter what you have to get to the tournament this year ...how is losing in the first round underachieving, because the fansbase thinks it is sweet 16 or bust
if stansbury makes the tournament, he will be back.
if he doesn't he won't ...the ball is in stansbury's court, so to speak
if stansbury makes the tournament, he will be back.
if he doesn't he won't ...the ball is in stansbury's court, so to speak
if we fired him after making the tourney. The only way I could see him being fired is if we win the SEC tourney and there was no way we would get an at-large...and lose the first round.
If that is what he told him up front at season start, then i'm fine with him staying. Goals were set. They were achieved. Again, though, I wasn't aware that Stricklin said tourney or bust.
Underachieving? Absolutely. It is underachieving for this team to be 6 and 7 in the SEC and something and 9 overall. 100% no questions asked at this point in the season we have underachieved. You argue that and I quit replying b/c your are stupid as 17.
If we squeak into the tourney and lose first round, thats underachieving. It really is that simple.
Underachieving? Absolutely. It is underachieving for this team to be 6 and 7 in the SEC and something and 9 overall. 100% no questions asked at this point in the season we have underachieved. You argue that and I quit replying b/c your are stupid as 17.
If we squeak into the tourney and lose first round, thats underachieving. It really is that simple.
It's that simple...You do remember Stans contract was not extended after last season, that was not done for a reason...
And unfortunately or not, perception matters in the college sports business.
I disagree in that I believe he should be fired if perception didn't matter. You consistently don't meet achievable goals in any business, you should be fired.
If the goal was set tourney or bust, then i'm good with it. I wouldn't have set that goal. My goal would have been something along the lines of a certain overall record and SEC record and tourney appearance. I can live with losing in the first round to a better team or to a hot team (Xavier, Duke, Texas). I can't live with losing to inferior opponents or having to play better teams b/c our regular season was a **** show.
For instance, we go 12 and 4 or 11 and 5 SEC and 25 and 6 or 24 and 7 overall we are in pretty good shape seeding wise. Not asking too much either. Very achievable. Now with decent seeding we play an inferior opponent. If they get hot, play lights out and beat us, I can live with that.
2nd Scenario. We go 8 and 8 SEC and 21 and 10 overall, squeak in and get a crappy seed, then lose to a better team in the first round. I'm not o.k. with that. If you don't screw around with the average to worse teams, you don't put yourself in that situation.
I disagree in that I believe he should be fired if perception didn't matter. You consistently don't meet achievable goals in any business, you should be fired.
If the goal was set tourney or bust, then i'm good with it. I wouldn't have set that goal. My goal would have been something along the lines of a certain overall record and SEC record and tourney appearance. I can live with losing in the first round to a better team or to a hot team (Xavier, Duke, Texas). I can't live with losing to inferior opponents or having to play better teams b/c our regular season was a **** show.
For instance, we go 12 and 4 or 11 and 5 SEC and 25 and 6 or 24 and 7 overall we are in pretty good shape seeding wise. Not asking too much either. Very achievable. Now with decent seeding we play an inferior opponent. If they get hot, play lights out and beat us, I can live with that.
2nd Scenario. We go 8 and 8 SEC and 21 and 10 overall, squeak in and get a crappy seed, then lose to a better team in the first round. I'm not o.k. with that. If you don't screw around with the average to worse teams, you don't put yourself in that situation.
My point is.......what if we squeak into the tourney and lose first round? Should he be fired?
NOT will he be fired, but SHOULD he be fired?
NOT will he be fired, but SHOULD he be fired?