Perhaps it has been mentioned here, but this looks to be the early/early line.
I honestly can't believe we are favored even though UCLA sucks.
I honestly can't believe we are favored even though UCLA sucks.
MSU -4.5 at UCLA
- Thread starter LightninInside
- Start date
Perhaps it has been mentioned here, but this looks to be the early/early line.
I honestly can't believe we are favored even though UCLA sucks.
I honestly can't believe we are favored even though UCLA sucks.
I would have thought that would have been bigger than -4.5. I thought we were double digit favorites last night against DePaul, and even though they are missing their top scorer, UCLA has some bad losses and would probably get beat by DePaul. I would think that even if the game is in Anaheim that we would have been larger favorites than that.
Short turnaround. Cross-country flight. Playing them in Los Angeles. Yeah, they have some terrible losses, but they also hung in there with Kansas for a little while and played Butler to the wire (losing by 2). I hope we don't go into this game overconfident and come out flat. That seemed to be the case vs. Rider and Richmond and we all know what happened there. The 4.5 point line is good for anyone taking us if we play like we should, because we'll beat them by double digits. But Vegas must be thinking the same thing in terms of trap game possibilities.
<p align="left">First, if lil ole Mississippi State in Starkville has "better players" than UCLfreakingA then Stansbury has "outcoached" Howland. Right?
Second, it is a coach's responsibility for his worse players, right? Ben Howland has coached at UCLA since 2003. Those players are his players.
Third, ...
Jarvis Varnado 4 star
Ravern Johnson 4 star
Dee Bost 4 star
Kodi Augustus 3 star
Barry Stewart 3 star
Romero Osby 4 star
Phil Turner 1 star
Riley Benock 2 star
Wendell Lewis 2 star</p> <p align="left">3.00 star average
Michael Roll 4 star
Malcolm Lee 4 star
Drew Gordon 4 star
Nikola Dragovic 1 star
Reeves Nelson 3 star
Jerime Anderson 4 star
James Keefe 4 star
Tyler Honeycutt 5 star
Brendan Lane 4 star
J'mison Morgan 5 star
Mike Moser 4 star</p> <p align="left">3.82 star average
Maybe Stansbury has "better players" now because he "coaches them up" ... nope, Howland is a better coach. I almost forgot.
</p>
Second, it is a coach's responsibility for his worse players, right? Ben Howland has coached at UCLA since 2003. Those players are his players.
Third, ...
Jarvis Varnado 4 star
Ravern Johnson 4 star
Dee Bost 4 star
Kodi Augustus 3 star
Barry Stewart 3 star
Romero Osby 4 star
Phil Turner 1 star
Riley Benock 2 star
Wendell Lewis 2 star</p> <p align="left">3.00 star average
Michael Roll 4 star
Malcolm Lee 4 star
Drew Gordon 4 star
Nikola Dragovic 1 star
Reeves Nelson 3 star
Jerime Anderson 4 star
James Keefe 4 star
Tyler Honeycutt 5 star
Brendan Lane 4 star
J'mison Morgan 5 star
Mike Moser 4 star</p> <p align="left">3.82 star average
Maybe Stansbury has "better players" now because he "coaches them up" ... nope, Howland is a better coach. I almost forgot.
</p>
the fact that UCLA are the four letters on their jerseys has some impact, I think. Also, I am comcerned by our inability to get the ball inside more efficiently. I don't agree that we'll be outcoached, but I would like to see more options for our offense. Dying by the three is not a pleasant way to go, though I agree that the dancing is raucous when the string music is playing.
If a team (such as DePaul) decides they want to take him away offensively, I have no problem with Ravern, Kodi, Dee, Phil, Barry, Romero, and even Riley taking their shots from behind the arc. Until we get someone else who can consistently get to the basket from the post, the three ball will be our fortune. But as we learned last year, we have the guys who can live more often than die from deep.
Once we get Riek and (good God willing) Sidney's reebok loving *** come conference play, we should have more options in the paint, and thus, more drive and dish. But I fear that Riek's impact will only pay dividends on the defensive side. So we'll probably need Osby, Kodi, or even Wendell to establish some sort of game down low in order to expand our offense moving forward.
If not, we shall live and die by the three. We can beat four teams in the West and three teams in the East with that kind of game, but I hope we diversify our strategy and turn things up a notch in the weeks to come. Let's see whatcha got, Stans.
Once we get Riek and (good God willing) Sidney's reebok loving *** come conference play, we should have more options in the paint, and thus, more drive and dish. But I fear that Riek's impact will only pay dividends on the defensive side. So we'll probably need Osby, Kodi, or even Wendell to establish some sort of game down low in order to expand our offense moving forward.
If not, we shall live and die by the three. We can beat four teams in the West and three teams in the East with that kind of game, but I hope we diversify our strategy and turn things up a notch in the weeks to come. Let's see whatcha got, Stans.
the players at UCLA should be better than the players at MSU. If we indeed have better players, then our coach is doing something right.
******** argument. Don't post that crap, because if we get beat that will be the EXCUSE!! If we would have lost the Egg this year that's what the fanbase would have said. If we beat UCLA, are you going to say that our caoch is really a "good" coach or are you going to say that the "star" system is ********, because we all know that if the 3's aren't falling and the Bruins drop into the dreaded zone then we lose. It's not a flame, it's just fact.
Coach34 stated that MSU has better players than UCLA. I responded with the "star system" which you apparently don't like.
Do you prefer the "cuz C34 said so" system?
Coach34 made a silly statement. I called him on it. He has no defense. Again.
Do you prefer the "cuz C34 said so" system?
Coach34 made a silly statement. I called him on it. He has no defense. Again.
just admit that stans is a better coach than howland... Thats what having better players than UCLA seems to mean if the same coach is responsible for the recruits...
come on, tell us how stans screwed your mother and you were the afterbirth... Which is what has created your fascination...
come on, tell us how stans screwed your mother and you were the afterbirth... Which is what has created your fascination...
You're trying waaaaay too hard here. When Jarvis Varnado and J'Mison Morgan were recruited, there was little doubt who the better prospect was. It was Morgan. Give any coach in America that choice when those guys were seniors (which was in different years) and 100% of them would have taken Morgan. As it turns out, one is about to be the all time block leader in the NCAA and the other can't get off the bench. By the same token, Phil Turner and Dragovic are both 1 stars, but integral parts of their respective teams. Drew Gordon left the team last week, Honeycutt has only played in one game, and on and on and on. Stars mean nothing. Make a decent argument and you will get the internet cred you so deeply long for.
we have hit 28 threes with 6 different players. If we are hot from the outside we win the large majority of the time, but if JV scores big that usually spells a loss for us, because we are not hitting outside thus we are feeding it to JV and standing around on the perimeter. UCLA has the horses to win, it might poor shooting, defense, or a lack of team ball, or coaching, it doesn't matter. When we are hot from the perimeter, we can beat anybody because we have 5-6 guys who can hit it. "Stars" mean nothing, did you ever think IU would have lead UK in the second half after OM made them look so bad (they are bad)? If UCLA plays tough perimeter d we might have some trouble, and if they get the lead late, drop into the dreaded zone, look for us to counter with the 3 man weave on the perimeter - not good for us.
Bottom line is that you don't need a star system to guage the success or failure of MSU basketball program, you just need to know how RS coached teams play and react in certain situations, because his coaching strategy on both ends of the court has not changed in 12 years.
Bottom line is that you don't need a star system to guage the success or failure of MSU basketball program, you just need to know how RS coached teams play and react in certain situations, because his coaching strategy on both ends of the court has not changed in 12 years.
Sorry, but I don't "deeply long for internet cred". You have an order of magnitude more posts than I.
If Varnado developed into a great player and J'Mison Morgan was a flop, does Stansbury get any credit? Or is he just lucky that his lower rated high school players turned into "better players" than UCLA's?
If Varnado developed into a great player and J'Mison Morgan was a flop, does Stansbury get any credit? Or is he just lucky that his lower rated high school players turned into "better players" than UCLA's?
According to the EXPERTS, UCLA has better recruits. Get it?
How did MSU's inferior recruits turn into better players? It's called "coaching". Coaching is more than calling plays from the bench. Stansbury continues to win despite the abscence of Stan Jones, but he is just lucky, I guess.
You and coach34 should go cry in your beer because blowouts over UCLA, SEC titles, etc. mean Stansbury isn't going anywhere.
How did MSU's inferior recruits turn into better players? It's called "coaching". Coaching is more than calling plays from the bench. Stansbury continues to win despite the abscence of Stan Jones, but he is just lucky, I guess.
You and coach34 should go cry in your beer because blowouts over UCLA, SEC titles, etc. mean Stansbury isn't going anywhere.
to just not "coach" up those pitiful UCLA recruits... I know its a hard sell to get them to come to UCLA and all but surely, with his great coaching expertise, he could beat little ol' mis'ippi state, right, coach???
It really has been a bad week for you...
It really has been a bad week for you...
Ever heard of Bender, Austin, Outlaw, Ellis, or Gordon?
I can't believe you are making excuses for the talent level at UCLA ..... wait a minute .... yes, I can. It is coach34 after all.
I can't believe you are making excuses for the talent level at UCLA ..... wait a minute .... yes, I can. It is coach34 after all.
Coach34 said:
We have lost a buttload of players too over the years and you have not seen us go 2-6 to start a season. Howland coaches at UCfreakingLA for Pete's sake. They should have their pick of top talent. If they have no talent to replace the talent they lost then it is the coache's fault. You are a damn liar if you say you would be as understanding if Stansbury went 2-6 starting last season after losing Rhodes and Gordon.
like your normally do...
Take my advice... Continue to avoid the topics after your points are ripped to shreds... Do not try to answer for your rediculous notions.
It really is a great week for all of us Trollhaters... Please keep it up...
Take my advice... Continue to avoid the topics after your points are ripped to shreds... Do not try to answer for your rediculous notions.
It really is a great week for all of us Trollhaters... Please keep it up...
If you say yes, you're an idiot.
If you say no, my question then becomes "who is to blame for losing the two games"?
If you say no, my question then becomes "who is to blame for losing the two games"?
Rider and Richmond.
Before the season, did you predict a blowout of UCLA in Anaheim? If you say yes, you're an idiot. If you say no, my question then becomes "who is to blame for the blowout"?
Before the season, did you predict a blowout of UCLA in Anaheim? If you say yes, you're an idiot. If you say no, my question then becomes "who is to blame for the blowout"?
I am still trying to get past you calling Pelphrey a better coach than Stansbury. That level of idiocy causes my brain to freeze up. It is amazing the level of suck you would put up with from any coach in America not named Rick Stansbury.
Howland is a good coach and has proved it over the years. However, he has done a horrid job this year. He is responsible for the talent that he has. Losing players is no excuse because we have lost players too over the years and 2-6 is a foreign concept to us because Rick has always brought in players and found diamonds in the rough to keep us competitive.
Howland is a good coach and has proved it over the years. However, he has done a horrid job this year. He is responsible for the talent that he has. Losing players is no excuse because we have lost players too over the years and 2-6 is a foreign concept to us because Rick has always brought in players and found diamonds in the rough to keep us competitive.