MaroonEagle- I take issue with this Stansbury line of thinking...

[Coach34]

"Stansbury has coached teams to four postseason appearances in the last five years (something only 25 percent of teams (roughly) do"

Thats not a very accurate depiction of what is happening. College basketball is skewed toward the BCS conferences and rewards them as so.

In the last 5 years, the BCS conferences average 48 of 69 members (69.5%) of it's teams playing in the NCAA Tourney or the NIT.

BCS conferences average 48% of its teams making the NCAA Tourney- with the majority of those having a 6 or higher seed

So by these numbers, in the last 5 years:

We have been in the bottom 30% of BCS schools- 2006
We have been in the bottom 50% of BCS schools- 2006, 2007, 2010
We just missed making the top 33% of BCS schools- 2008 (23 teams had a higher seed)
And because we won the SEC Tourney- we were the last team in the top 50% of 2009 from the BCS

3 of the last 5 years we have been a lower half BCS school, and another year slipped in the top 50 as the last team

There is nothing top 25% about our program in college basketball

 

[GloryDawg]

bd

 

[Coach34]

.

 

[Goat Holder II]

only problem is, Stans is not getting the best out of the players he has right now. That's Croomesque. Yeah, he gets credit for getting talent to campus, but is his main recruiting pitch that they can do whatever they want once they get here? Or are these players really not as good as we think they are? I'm thinking the latter, but maybe a little of both. </p>

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I mean, of course, that roughly 25 percent of all schools eligible for NCAA Division I basketball competition become eligible for/are invited to participate inpostseason competition, so Mississippi State is, when compared to every team in D-I,in thetop 25 percent in my estimation.1

In football, there are 120 D-IA football schools. Top 25 percent would be #30, and MSU is #21 currently in the BCS-- making us in the top 20 percent.

In conclusion, my point is that it's easier to be considered successful in football than basketball. After all, 70 of 120 schools get to participate in bowls, which is roughly 58.3 percent of the football playing schools in D-I.2

_________
1Of course, that number is actually higher now with the two additional tournaments that were founded in the past three years; however, I choose not to count those because if you're not good enough to make the NIT, then it's a completely unsuccessful season as far as I'm concerned.

2And because football is an easier sport to be successful in statistically, Croom's performance as a head coach is abysmal in comparison to Stansbury. Also, if you did count the two additional tournaments, then that means that only the top 38.2 percent (132) participate in postseason activities.

 

[Coach34]

doesnt mean football is easier....

Counting schools like Alabama St, Belmont, Binghampton, Norfolk State, David Lipscomb, Florida Gulf Coast, and many, many more teams that make up D-1 basketball is pretty silly. There is no way in hell these teams are ever going to have legitimate D-1 programs.

Appalachian State is D-1 in basketball but 1-AA in football. They could compete just as well if not better in D-1 football as they do in basketball. And so could alot of those schools. Georgia Southern being another off the top of my head.

The BCS comparision is the one that makes sense. And should this season go the way it looks, we will be in the bottom 50% of BCS schools in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Thats not a very good program and one that needs to have some changes made.

 

[mstateglfr]

Both conferences are legit, both often put more than 1 team into the NCAAT, and it is not uncommon for teams from both to be ranked thru the season.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

...but it's not because more schools play basketball.

Going a bit further into seeing what is easier (football or basketball), I see that there are 249 schools playing Division I football (120 in 1A; 129 in 1AA but 28 1AA schools don't participate in the postseason in football (SWAC, Ivy, and Pioneer)) so there are 90 schools that participate in the postseason out of 221 realistic contenders-- a percentage of 40.7 that is skewed very heavily towards 1A.

It is slightly easier for aD-Ifootball team to make the postseason in comparison to a D-I basketball team. That being said, the football team's schedule by rule has to be tougher (e.g., only one 1A game allowed to count towards wins for I-A programs). Bear in mind that it's much easier for a 1-A team to make a bowl game (58.3 percent of all teams) than it is for a 1-AA team (19.8 percentof all realistic teams) to make the playoffs.

 

[Coach34]

I like the BCS comparision because it's just a much better gauge as to how we really are performing- and including the A-10 and MWC would be ok too...

Where I take issue, and I'm not singling you out, just from comments in general, is the "but we are M-State" mentality.

On one hand, people will point to our budget and say we cant expect to be bigtime with it. But then turn right around and gloat about talk about we are in the top 25% of college basketball. Well, guess what? Our budget is in the top 25% of college basketball too. Dont say we shouldnt be able to compete with top teams consistently because of budget, then turn around and gloat about being better than the 75%-78% of college basketball that we have higher budgets than.

70% of BCS schools are in the postseason every year, and roughly 50% of those are NCAA bound. Thats what we need to compare our program to and how we are performing

 

[Maroon Eagle]

...I just think that Stansburyto Croomisn'tthe best comparison. I think better comparisons would beStansbury to Sherrill and Croom to Paul Gregory(who was 58-100 in basketball, 33-83 in conference for MSU).</p>

 

[Coach34]

"...I just think that Stansbury to Croom isn't the best comparison"


It was just strictly from a standpoint of having no hope of beating a solid BCS team not named Fla, Kentucky, Tenn, or Vandy