msu basketball expectations...
- Thread starter fedxdog
- Start date
who cares about what happened prior to 1996....it's about: is Stans moving the program forward? I would say hell no!
beachbumdawg said:
The question was clearly about whether or not this program exceeds your expectations or not. My answer is yes. Whether you like it or not Stans has won a unprecedented number of games at MSU. He is the first coach to win this consistently at MSU.
a lot for our program, but the fact is, we have gone as far as we can possibly go with Rick Stansbury, and I expect more than early season, mid season or end of season meltdowns from his teams that cost us NCAA bids year-in and year-out. It has been CONSISTENT every single year for at least the last 6 years. It's time to move forward and give Rick the chance to leave on his terms while still in the good graces of MSU fans and not drive this program further in the ground.
Coach34 said:
I think Cuonzo Martin has done a great job. I think that he will be a very successful coach at UT and the vol fans should expect that. At the same time, I think that we have to realize that we were nothing before we started winning consistently with Stans. The letdowns happen to everyone. Does everyone here realize we've been to the NCAA Tournament 10 times?? 10. Stansbury has gotten us there 6. That's not a fluke. But this is a discussion best meant for another thread. I've already answered this q. This program exceeds my expectations.
So I guess we should consider ourselves lucky to win a single game.
You have to re-evaluate (and raise) your expectations more often than once every quarter-century. </p>
You have to re-evaluate (and raise) your expectations more often than once every quarter-century. </p>
It's obvious we have hit the ceiling on his potential and are probably on the other side of the curve on his productivity.
College athletics is a business. It is not acceptable to keep a guy around because of what he has done if what he is doing is not acceptable. I am appreciative of Stansbury for what he has done for the program. I acknowledge his accomplishments, which are many, but I in no way think he should be the head coach of MSU's basketball team after what has happened within the program in the past couple of years.
There comes a time for every coach to be replaced, now is his.
College athletics is a business. It is not acceptable to keep a guy around because of what he has done if what he is doing is not acceptable. I am appreciative of Stansbury for what he has done for the program. I acknowledge his accomplishments, which are many, but I in no way think he should be the head coach of MSU's basketball team after what has happened within the program in the past couple of years.
There comes a time for every coach to be replaced, now is his.
If we get a 7 seed in the NIT next year, do we keep him because it was better than some of the years before 1996? Do we keep him until he has a losing record because a winning record is still better than some of the years before1996?
At what point do you think we shouldjudge our team's performance based on what Rick Stansbury has done since 1996? 2 more years? 5 years? At some point, you have to hold Rick accountable and base his current performance off of his performance in the past. </p>
At what point do you think we shouldjudge our team's performance based on what Rick Stansbury has done since 1996? 2 more years? 5 years? At some point, you have to hold Rick accountable and base his current performance off of his performance in the past. </p>
then why are you content with mediocrity when other programs are trying to get better than where they were previously..? If you stay the same while everyone progresses, you're effectively declining in comparison to the competition.
I'm surprised you are so proud of the 1991 SEC championship. We were 13-5 in the league that year, tied for the 2nd best record behind Kentucky. And back then, the SEC was a worse basketball league than it is today. We got blown out by last place Tennessee in the 1st round of the SEC tournament and got blown out by Eastern Michigan in the 1st round of the NCAA tournament. Looks almost exactly like an SEC West title and a 1st weekend exit from the NCAA tournament (except Stans usually made it to the 2nd round back then).
17 that noise! You want us to fire him when he runs the program to the ground? I'm sorry, but that seriously is 17ing retarded. This is past opinions now.. I can't believe the acceptable time frame for him to be fired for you and others who share the same time period is when he leaves this program in shambles... That is 17ing stupid.
You seem like the type of person that will stay persistent with a procedure until you've hit rock bottom. Once you get to that point, it's too late and you've dug yourself a pit so deep you can't even see light.
They have far different issues than we have. SI didn't write an article, but several articles have been written about how dysfunctional and underachieving our program is. It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall. All it takes is for someone to look at the last 3 seasons and realize that we have vastly underachieved, and this season is the capstone of underachievement.
Whether to fire Stansbury is not an easy decision, but you sound like an idiot.
It's pretty clear that he is on the downslope of his career. The reasonably argument is whether one more year to placate the big money guys, plus presumably landing Pollard, and hopefully make the job a little more attractive for the next guy, is a good trade-off for basically sacrificing a year of basketball, putting off a chance at rebuilding one more year, alienating a good portion of the fan base, etc.
And comparing the current state of our program to pre-1996? WTF??? You need to look at the resources we have now and what kind of job Stansbury is doing. Looking at the past 6 years, he's actually doing ok or better, but competing to be mentioned in the bubble discussions just isn't enough for the majortiy of fans. If they have to risk giving up their status as a consistent non-tournament but bubble team for the chance at being a tournament team, and occasionally even advancing in the tournament, they'll do so. Being apathetic about a bottom dweller in the SEC in basketball isn't really any worse than being apathetic about a "middle dweller" so the risk reward for replacing Stansubry looks pretty good to a lot of fans.
It's pretty clear that he is on the downslope of his career. The reasonably argument is whether one more year to placate the big money guys, plus presumably landing Pollard, and hopefully make the job a little more attractive for the next guy, is a good trade-off for basically sacrificing a year of basketball, putting off a chance at rebuilding one more year, alienating a good portion of the fan base, etc.
And comparing the current state of our program to pre-1996? WTF??? You need to look at the resources we have now and what kind of job Stansbury is doing. Looking at the past 6 years, he's actually doing ok or better, but competing to be mentioned in the bubble discussions just isn't enough for the majortiy of fans. If they have to risk giving up their status as a consistent non-tournament but bubble team for the chance at being a tournament team, and occasionally even advancing in the tournament, they'll do so. Being apathetic about a bottom dweller in the SEC in basketball isn't really any worse than being apathetic about a "middle dweller" so the risk reward for replacing Stansubry looks pretty good to a lot of fans.
to be able to compete with other schools who are getting better. Wal-Mart busted their *** to get better at what they did while K-Mart decided they were doing well enough. Guess who is still around? Same thing here. If you aren't constantly being competitive with other schools, what difference does it make if you are "getting better as a program?" That, my friend, is the definition of mediocrity and contempt... and neither of those things will get you anywhere.