O Alright, RICK STANSBURY

[abcdefg]

<div style="min-width: 0px; max-width: 99%; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; ">One of the top arguments for hanging on to Rick Stansbury voiced my direction is that we jeopardizethe entire program because we will never be able to replace a coach who wins the SEC west year in and year out (a division which ranks among the poorest in college basketball of late). To which I say hang the west titles if we never get out of the 1st weekend of march madness (and especially if we don't even make it in!). VCU and Richmond have now surpassed RS--if such institutions are able to recognize and hire coaching talent, why can't we??? I say the time has come to give it a shot and bring on a mid-major coach who knows how to bring an edge off the bench as well as aggressively recruit. Has the bulldog nation fallen into such a stupor that it actually regards as successful winning a weak division and a one-and-done tourney showing?! And I'm not even bringing up the off court sideshow--one wonders which seasoned player will leave State this summer! Don't get me wrong I appreciate the man for what he has accomplished--I simply think we can do better.</div><div>
</div>

 

[benatmsu]

**

 

[Daledog]

I don't understand why everyone points to the fact that we haven't made it past the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament as their main argument against Coach Stansbury. You have to look at the whole body of work to determine if a coach is a good coach. Stans is 272-151. We went 25-2 one year!!! We have had the most success we have ever had in the SEC tourney and that is considered the post season. A lot of the NCAA tournament is luck! Look at the situations of the NCAA tourney that we ran into. We had to play one of the hottest teams in the country with Xavier, we had to play what was essentially a home game against Texas. We played Butler before the country knew who Butler was.....they were a lot better than a 12 seed that year and we played two #1 seeds very close. Stans puts us in positions to make runs in the NCAA tournament/make the tournament and for a school that has no basketball history, that's pretty impressive. I don't know why the bar is set at the sweet sixteen when we have only made it there twice in school history!!! And keep in mind that we have lost several recruits to the NBA....with some of those players, State could have been a top 10 team. So please, look at the WHOLE picture and not focus on the fact that we have not made it out of the 2nd round.

 

[Daledog]

The cry for a mid major coach is also ridiculous. The top ones are likely not going to consider State. If we do get a mid level coach, one of 2 things would probably happen: 1. The coach is not as good of a coach as everybody thought (see Pelphry) or 2. The coach has tremendous success and then leaves for a more prominent school with deeper pockets. Believe it or not, small town Mississippi is not a very appealing place to live for most people that aren't from around here. If you can come up with a great coach with ties to Mississippi then you might have a better argument. Until then, I am happy with Stans.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

You have to look at the whole body of work to determine if a coach is a good coach. Stans is 272-151.

Let's take a look at our record vs teams in certain RPI categories over the lastsix seasons...

vs TOP25:3-17
vsTOP50:17-35
vsTOP100: 41-62
vs TOP 150: 67-71
vs SUB 150: 55-8

We beat bad teams. We lose to good teams. That doesn't exactly point to us having a good coach.

we played two #1 seeds very close. Stans puts us in positions to make runs in the NCAA tournament/make the tournament

You're right. We did play those #1 seeds close. But you know why we had to face those teams as early as the second round? Because we lost games during those seasons that we shouldn't have lost. Bad losses equals bad seeding, if you're lucky enough to make the tournament. And bad losses area Stansbury staple, and it goes against your theory that he "puts us in positions to make runs in the NCAA tournament." And we've onlyhadone NCAA tournament-worthy resume in the last six seasons, which goes against your theory that he puts us in positions to "make the tournament."

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Overall record - check.
Highwater mark - check
SEC tourney success - check
Xavier was hot - check
Texas in Dallas - check
Butler was better than a 12 - check
We played 1 seeds close - check
We have no history - check
Lost recruits to NBA - check

Daledog - I have never once stated on this board that we should fire Stans, though I am critical of him from time to time. What you have listed above is true, but in my opinion it is not the whole story. I offer these as points for you to at least consider.

Our record is inflated from playing weak OOC teams. This is factual if you look at our OOC SOS each year. We have been above average in his tenure in the SEC. Not great, but above average.

The NCAA games are all excuses. Winning programs find a way to win. We pissed and moaned about going to Dallas to play and had a very good chance to win that game after getting off to an abysmal start. We were rewarded next year with Birmingham, and choked that one away. The same with Xavier. I don't wanna hear about "hot." A 2 seed should not lose to a 7 or whatever they were. Yes, they were good, but we were, as you pointed out, 25-2 that year and SEC champs. We should have won.

The close games against 1 seeds are due to being seeded 8/9. The seeding happens because of the combination of our weak SOS and our annual inconsistent play. In both of those years we were better than 8/9 seeds, but we played our way into a lower seed. Consistency has always eluded Rick, always. If we could have found more consistency those years, and been a 6 seed for instance, perhaps we aren't still having this discussion years later.

History doesn't matter to most of these players today. Outside of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas and UCLA, most schools don't have enough history for them to know anyway. In the next 2-3 of years we will be recruiting players born after our Final Four team in 96. We think of that as recent history. They think of it as something that happened before they were born.

As for the recruits we lost....woulda shoulda coulda.....I would have loved to have seen those guys in maroon, but you can't judge your program on players you didn't get.

 

[abcdefg]

I can't rule out these weighty accomplishments, but some of the responsibility for poor seeding which leads to difficult competition in the first weekend rests on horrific early season losses coupled with conference play in which we are known to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory as a result of the Stansbury stall. Though we have had some really great NCAA tourney competition in which we came close to advancing (eg Duke and Memphis), were it not for poor seeding we would not have had to play those teams until the second weekend. I just believe that the poor seeding is primarily a result of poor preparation on Stansbury's part in pre-conference play. Listen, I'm with you in noting his wins against losses ratio, but I do not have the same feeling I get when Mullen steps onto the field of play with Stansbury. You get the sense that when Mullen arrives he brings with him an edge in his tactical ability to dissect the opponent and adapt in such a way to give our team a shot. Even though we have had some pretty remarkable talent under Stansbury, I feel that his bench coaching places us at a disadvantage too often. At some point, we must ask ourselves are we really pleased to see sweet 16 talent go home early year in and year out? I would love to see what a rock solid x's and o's coach could do with Stansbury's talent. And I hope to eat crow on this one--I want Stansbury to overcome this curse, but I've been hoping for a very long time now. I will say this--we kick that tale for ole miss year in and year out!!

 

[mstateglfr]

Our current national recognition is for having a couple a super heavyweights duke it out in the stands.
That isn't the type of recognition I want.

7 years ago, we won the conference. Yep, that was awesome. That was also 7 years ago. Crap that was a long time ago.
And since then? We have done jack **** outside of our division. We won the conference tournament, also cool. And is that really it?

10-11......no postseason whatsoever, even with a veteran team and an elite young player. Didn't even win the division.
09-10......the NIT, even though we had a veteran team. We won the West and what did that get us?...nothing nationally.
08-09......we had to win the sect to even get into the NCAAs. That is how little we were respected.
07-08......we won the division and got to the NCAAs. And did nothing.
06-07......we won the division and got?...a trip to the friggin NIT as a result. Super.
05-06......we did nothing. At all. Not a thing. Nobody feared us. We were young.
04-05......we were decent, but really didn't do anything on a national stage. Made the NCAAs and didn't make anything happen.

Since 04-05, I believe we have been ranked once. It was the start of last season. We promptly lost to Rider and faded into obscurity from a national perspective.
Speaking of which, our ooc scheduling for a half decade now has done little to promote the program. We lose to bad teams and beat bad teams. Not much need for us to be talked about nationally with that ooc history.

 

[Coach34]

The cry for a mid major coach is also ridiculous. The top ones are likely not going to consider State.- why? They dont like making twice as muchmoney while they coach in a prestigious conference?

If we do get a mid level coach, one of 2 things would probably happen: 1. The coach is not as good of a coach as everybody thought (see Pelphry)- also see Tubby Smith, Billy Donovan, Anthony Grant, Bruce Pearl, and countless other coaches

or 2. The coach has tremendous success and then leaves for a more prominent school with deeper pockets.-they better be good and deep,Stansburyis one of the TOP 40-50 paid coachesin the nationout of 340 teams...

Believe it or not, small town Mississippi is not a very appealing place to live for most people that aren't from around here. If you can come up with a great coach with ties to Mississippi then you might have a better argument. Until then, I am happy with Stans.- believe it or not, lots of coaches want to make 1.5 million dollars and coach in a major conference instead of making400-500K at a good mid-major

 

[abcdefg]

If we are limited to coaches who are from MS and/or have ties to MS, then I guess we need LT back to head things up to maintain a certain status quo of mediocrity. I prefer an aggressive approach--to me its better to go for it than to adopt a "let's just accept our place" mentality. To be sure, many college towns can boast of more amenities, but this just means the AD must seek ways to overcome--and there is more to it than the community one lives in or else, in my opinion, Hawaii would always have the best coaches.