I have a brain exercise for those who would like to play. Lets say that you are the AD at Mississippi State. You have been told in no uncertain terms that you cannot fire Stansbury, and another solution must be presented. What do you do (and please, don't say you will resign)? I am really looking for constructive, solid ideas.
Lets find real solutions....
- Thread starter msudogsrule01
- Start date
I have a brain exercise for those who would like to play. Lets say that you are the AD at Mississippi State. You have been told in no uncertain terms that you cannot fire Stansbury, and another solution must be presented. What do you do (and please, don't say you will resign)? I am really looking for constructive, solid ideas.
Can you force him to fire assistants? If so, that's my solution, force him to fire assistants and force him to hire an assistant who knows how to freakin coach.
All new staff. OK, he can keep ONE of his current ones. The other two hires have to be skilled in either game planning or discipline or both. Then as AD I would survey the top 20-30 basketball programs to see what kind of S&C program they have, and mimic it. No questions. Finally I would demand he step up the scheduling. No more getting fat on crappy teams. Time for him and the program to fish or cut bait. Either we're scared to play people or we're not. Find some A-10 teams or lower level power conference teams and replace the 250+ RPI games with them. If you ever get a shot to go to one of the elite programs, you go.
Most of us (admit it, guys) felt late in the 2008 season that while it was time for him to go, we were stuck with him. Magically, it all seemed to end the day after 45-0.
I feel like if we force him to fire his assistants, we might as well just fire Stansbury too.
It's going to be a whole lot easier on everybody to just fire Stansbury than it would be to try to force him to do things differently. That's true for any coach really.
It's going to be a whole lot easier on everybody to just fire Stansbury than it would be to try to force him to do things differently. That's true for any coach really.
I never said I would encourage it. I said I would ALLOW it. If I had to choose it would be Grant simply because I am convinced Cunningham is completely worthless on all fronts and Brooks had no business getting hired in the first place. Put Marcus on a staff with some other assistants who can continue to teach him the game while allowing him to use his personality and experiences to recruit, and perhaps he turns into a decent assistant.
Croom had one winning season in his career. It was also clear that the team had abandoned him at every level. I know that there is perhaps an argument for the last part on this team (although I am not a convinced as others), I certainly know that it is not the case for the first part. Everyone wants to say that it is an easy decision for Scott, but I propose that boosters have a lot more to say about it than some think, and that my feel is that most aren't ready for a change at the top (lets assume this for the nature of this exercise). So what is your next move as AD?
so in the nature of the excercise, if you don't think this is feasible, what is the next step to take (once again assuming you cannot fire Stans).
you keep Grant. Cunningham has been here the longest and might be part of the problem. Brooks has completed his task of locking up Hood. Grant is and will always be a fan favorite so you buy some points with the fans there.
msudogsrule01 said:
I would tell the cigar boys or whoever is not allowing me to fire the guy to not ***** when the same stuff is still happening and our program is a steaming pile of dung that is going to take four years to rebuild.
I know that's not what you are looking for, but it's the truth. Stansbury is not going to change even if we brought in whoever the best assistants are and whoever the best strength coach is. It's going to create tension and Stans and the assistants are not going to get along, and it's going to get to the point where things won't get better- but they'lla actually get worse. See Auburn when they forced Tuberville to hire Tony Franklin as their OC.
We're actually better off keeping things like they are- assuming that we can not fire Stansbury- than trying to force things on him. And when I say "better off"- I mean maybe 3-4 more wins.
If you can't fire Stans and making him clean house isn't feasible, there isn't a lot more you can do. Anything else like mandating specific strength programs or scheduling would come across as micromanaging. You don't want to get that sort of reputation. It could limit your hiring pool in the future.
Let me ask you this. For what reason(s) might the AD not be able to fire the head basketball coach?
Let me ask you this. For what reason(s) might the AD not be able to fire the head basketball coach?
force Rick to hire a competent assistant that can make REAL contributions to both in-game strategy AND team discipline and management. Right now, as someone else even pointed out, a HUGE problem is that Stans does not have the respect of his team like he should have. Perhaps a more experienced, veteran assistant (more like what we lost in Kirby) could help a lot with that.
The only way that would work is if the DBO was actually over the basketball program. No good coach would come here under those circumstances.
bring in 3 new assistants. One for Offensive strategy one for Defensive strategy and one for hard core nasty in your face discipline. Stansbury can recruit and be the face of the program but the coaching is left to those 3. Out of Conference scheduling has to mirror Florida, Tennessee and Kentuckys. No more kids on the bench. Use the strength and conditioning coach a lot. One of the new coaches has to be a proven excellent shooter too and he needs to improve shooting amongst the players. Also it's important to look hip,cool, whatever to kids so some changes/additions in uniforms/shoes/gameday atmosphere etc...pair of Beats headphones and iPod touch for every player goes a long way.
I think it boils down to the blue hairs with the money really don't want him gone. They have, for the most part from my understanding (I could easily be wrong), written this off as a fluke year that will be taken care of with the departure of Ravern (who they really, really dislike). I think we would be foolish to think they don't have some pull with the AD.
I would have a long talk with him about "retiring" from coaching for a season like Urban Meyer. I would explain that he simply isnt getting it done, and he might want to take a year off, spend more time with Meo and the boys, and work for the University in an Associate AD role while he figured out what his next step in life should be.
If he disagreed with me and wanted to press on as coach. I'd say ok- here's the deal:
"I'm behind you publically and I'll support your efforts in the upcoming season. But the program has been sliding and we have too much drama year after year. We have talent returning and talent coming in. You better at least make the Sweet 16 mf'er in 2012 or you will be fired. It's that simple. Do what you think is necessary to reach that goal. Let me know what I can do to help. Have a good day coach- get to work."
If he disagreed with me and wanted to press on as coach. I'd say ok- here's the deal:
"I'm behind you publically and I'll support your efforts in the upcoming season. But the program has been sliding and we have too much drama year after year. We have talent returning and talent coming in. You better at least make the Sweet 16 mf'er in 2012 or you will be fired. It's that simple. Do what you think is necessary to reach that goal. Let me know what I can do to help. Have a good day coach- get to work."
Stans needs to retire or be fired. We don't need him at MSU anymore... Thanks for all that you have done, but it's Time to Go........
The only solution is probably exactly what will happen.
You tell him since everyone of the current problem children will be gone, he has a fresh group coming in (don't kid yourselves Sid gone, Bost gone, Augustus and Johnson no eligibility) and you want in writing the team rules and he better not have anymore issues of this years nature in the future. You tell him that in the future, he needs to recruit more Timmy Bowers and no more Iverson and Artest wannabes. Otherwise your contract will not be extended.
You tell him since everyone of the current problem children will be gone, he has a fresh group coming in (don't kid yourselves Sid gone, Bost gone, Augustus and Johnson no eligibility) and you want in writing the team rules and he better not have anymore issues of this years nature in the future. You tell him that in the future, he needs to recruit more Timmy Bowers and no more Iverson and Artest wannabes. Otherwise your contract will not be extended.
Even quoted saying as much. That could change, however. Sidney might come back, providing he didn't blow up his classes this semester (I have no idea on that one). I figure that he is 50-50, especially after reading the quote on him from an NBA scout.
is such a train wreck due to his "day-late" pull out of the NBA draft. Why wouldn't he want to come back next year if it looks like we'll have better personnel. He is still very unlikely to get drafted even in the second round.
who last year would have ever believed we would have tossed Turner to the curb while keeping a roster spot for Twanny. That one made a lot of sense.
It's not like Scott can't justify firing him. He has brought in players that are embarassing the school and are not winning.
I think if we got rid of Stansbury, the blue hairs would get over it and move on. Just like they did with Dan.
There are really only two realistic options here, because Stansbury will never sign off on bringing in new assistants that know more than him.
1. Fire him.
2. Keep him and expect no changes.
I just can't see Stansbury changing- even if it meant saving his job.
I think if we got rid of Stansbury, the blue hairs would get over it and move on. Just like they did with Dan.
There are really only two realistic options here, because Stansbury will never sign off on bringing in new assistants that know more than him.
1. Fire him.
2. Keep him and expect no changes.
I just can't see Stansbury changing- even if it meant saving his job.
if you footed thge bill for he last payraise or two you wouldnt be too happy about the money being flushed down the toilet for the next guy either. Winning be damned.