Old Dominion Head Basketball Coach...
- Thread starter DAWG61
- Start date
I agree with this. I went to a few of there games this year, and his players hustle. It will not be long before he is coaching at a large school. Only thing is he really wants to go to the west coast, at least that is whats said on the local espn affiliate here.
Im not a big fan of basketball coaches with mustaches. PASS
His Wikipedia page says that he won the CIT in 2009 Ive never even heard of that tournament, and in 2008 he made the quarter finals of the CBI. I hope some of you aren't serious about this guy.
</p>
His Wikipedia page says that he won the CIT in 2009 Ive never even heard of that tournament, and in 2008 he made the quarter finals of the CBI. I hope some of you aren't serious about this guy.
</p>
there are a lot of posters on this board who really would rather have a guy like this rather than the coach we do have. At least 2/3 of the names I've seen posters pimping for the MSU job would be big downgrades from what we have now, and most of the rest wouldn't be much of an upgrade if any.AshleySchaffer said:
I'mok withthe we need to get rid of Stansbury or make some staff changes mindset, but alot of the names thrown out on here are terrbile. Give me a name like Randy Bennett from St. Mary's who has a Sweet 16 on his resume and is only 48 years old. Give me Mark Few from Gonzaga with an NCAA Tournament appearance every year since 2000 along with 4 Sweet 16's. Dont throw out Blaine Taylor whose resume looks alot like Stansbury's. Give me someone that's done something on the big stage.
I dont think we could attract either Randy Bennett or Mark Few even if we offered them over$2 million a year. They are west coast guysand I dont think the would move to Mississippi.mstatefan88 said:
Maybe...<div>
</div><div>But there's no way Mark Few would leave Gonzaga, a place where he can consistently be nationally competitive, just to come to Mississippi State. If he was going to leave Gonzaga, he would have definitely done so by now, and he would have gone to a moreprestigiousschool than us. That's just a fact.</div><div>
</div><div>If you want a dark horse pick, look at Duggar Baucom of VMI. He doesn't have a great overall record, but it's nearly impossible to recruit at VMI since it's a military school. Nonetheless, his teams lead the country most years in scoring by playing a very fast up-tempo game. It would be exciting.</div>
</div><div>But there's no way Mark Few would leave Gonzaga, a place where he can consistently be nationally competitive, just to come to Mississippi State. If he was going to leave Gonzaga, he would have definitely done so by now, and he would have gone to a moreprestigiousschool than us. That's just a fact.</div><div>
</div><div>If you want a dark horse pick, look at Duggar Baucom of VMI. He doesn't have a great overall record, but it's nearly impossible to recruit at VMI since it's a military school. Nonetheless, his teams lead the country most years in scoring by playing a very fast up-tempo game. It would be exciting.</div>
I think I will pass on Duggar Baucom considering he has never won anything. Scoring a lot of points is fun to watch but sucks losing 110-100.
And for Mark Few, he turned down Oregon last year and they offered big money. If he won't go to Oregon he wont come to Mississippi State. As for Bennett, I think he is a good coach but he has been benefitted by Austrailian players such as Paddy Mills, Dellavadova, Ben Allen, etc... Many of those Aussies choose to come there b/c its on the West Coast as well. I doubt he would come to State, and thats just my opinion.
And for Mark Few, he turned down Oregon last year and they offered big money. If he won't go to Oregon he wont come to Mississippi State. As for Bennett, I think he is a good coach but he has been benefitted by Austrailian players such as Paddy Mills, Dellavadova, Ben Allen, etc... Many of those Aussies choose to come there b/c its on the West Coast as well. I doubt he would come to State, and thats just my opinion.
We all do know how much more difficult it is for a mid-major and especially low major coach to Dance, right?
So if the record is littered with lower tier tournaments, that isnt a testament to the coach's weakness, at least not by default.
Also, overall records will be skewed since they travel to the big schools for paid games and losses.
His record looks like a coach that has been able to dominate their conference as of late and has been able to take a midmajor team and put them on the national spotlight in the last couple years(ODU has been talked about by national writers more than MSU, save the fight).
I guess i just dont see how their records reflect one another.
So if the record is littered with lower tier tournaments, that isnt a testament to the coach's weakness, at least not by default.
Also, overall records will be skewed since they travel to the big schools for paid games and losses.
His record looks like a coach that has been able to dominate their conference as of late and has been able to take a midmajor team and put them on the national spotlight in the last couple years(ODU has been talked about by national writers more than MSU, save the fight).
I guess i just dont see how their records reflect one another.
Win your sucky side of the conference in the SEC - enjoy the NIT.
Win your sucky conference as a mid-major - welcome to the dance, Cinderella.
Win your sucky conference as a mid-major - welcome to the dance, Cinderella.
1 and maybe sometimes 2 out of 10/12/14 make the NCAAs in a midmajor. 1 out of the ENTIRE CONFERENCE makes the NCAAs in a lowmajor.
Meanwhile, the SEC is about to get 4-6 teams in, and think about how much the media and fans have ripped on this conference for being weak. That is 1/3 - 1/2 of the teams.
****, the BigEast may very well get 60% of its teams in.
You really think 7-15% odds for mid and low major conferences is better than 30-60% for major conferences?
There are only 4 conferences that arentbig timebasketball conferences that are getting multiple bids. By 'big time' i mean the BCS conferences plus MWC and A10.
But it is apparently easier to get that 1 auto bid by winning your conference tournament versus being just in the top 40% most years of your major conference.
Brilliant.
Meanwhile, the SEC is about to get 4-6 teams in, and think about how much the media and fans have ripped on this conference for being weak. That is 1/3 - 1/2 of the teams.
****, the BigEast may very well get 60% of its teams in.
You really think 7-15% odds for mid and low major conferences is better than 30-60% for major conferences?
There are only 4 conferences that arentbig timebasketball conferences that are getting multiple bids. By 'big time' i mean the BCS conferences plus MWC and A10.
But it is apparently easier to get that 1 auto bid by winning your conference tournament versus being just in the top 40% most years of your major conference.
Brilliant.
Because that is the entire argument. Which is easier?
And the obvious answer should be that as an SEC team it is easier to finish in the top 5 of the SEC versus as an OVC team finishing atop the OVC.
Also, winning the OVC only gets you an auto bid to the NIT. You have to win the OVC Tournament to get into the NCAAs. Just to be clear.
Finishing in the top 40% of your conference should always be easier than finishing in the top 8-10%(meaning you won it all). How is this even an argument?
I bet casinos comp you left and right when you show up.
And the obvious answer should be that as an SEC team it is easier to finish in the top 5 of the SEC versus as an OVC team finishing atop the OVC.
Also, winning the OVC only gets you an auto bid to the NIT. You have to win the OVC Tournament to get into the NCAAs. Just to be clear.
Finishing in the top 40% of your conference should always be easier than finishing in the top 8-10%(meaning you won it all). How is this even an argument?
I bet casinos comp you left and right when you show up.
I'll take winning the Ohio Valley Conference against ZERO NCAAT teams is easier than winning the SEC against 4-6.
Is this really that difficult for you to understand?
And let me clarify something. You are trying to make this relative to the strength of the conference. And that's not what I've learned on here is appropriate.
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>
What does it matter if you are an SEC team or not? We are talking about who has the easier road to the NCAAT. I say winning the OVC tournament is easier than winning the SEC tournament.
Why the **** would you think an OVC team should be used when discussing if it is easier to win in that conferenceor in the SEC?
It should go without saying(though apparently it cant) that if a coach is in the SEC, then the talent will typically be at SEC level. And if they are coaching in the OVC, then the team's talent will be around that level.
If a coach comes in 2nd in the OVC every single year for a decade, that shows they are able to recruit at a high level, develop players, create consistency in the program, consistently win, any yet they may very well never make the NCAA Tournament.
If you take that very same coach and project his abilities and accomplishments into ANY major conference, they will make the NCAAs EVERY year.
Hell, you can actually be conservative and say that he isnt as consistent, and he will STILL make the NCAAs pretty much every year, even if he finishes 4th in the conference or 5th, instead of the 2nd he always finished when in the OVC.
Like i said, casinos must love you.
It should go without saying(though apparently it cant) that if a coach is in the SEC, then the talent will typically be at SEC level. And if they are coaching in the OVC, then the team's talent will be around that level.
If a coach comes in 2nd in the OVC every single year for a decade, that shows they are able to recruit at a high level, develop players, create consistency in the program, consistently win, any yet they may very well never make the NCAA Tournament.
If you take that very same coach and project his abilities and accomplishments into ANY major conference, they will make the NCAAs EVERY year.
Hell, you can actually be conservative and say that he isnt as consistent, and he will STILL make the NCAAs pretty much every year, even if he finishes 4th in the conference or 5th, instead of the 2nd he always finished when in the OVC.
Like i said, casinos must love you.
Austin Peay? Eastern Illinois? maybe Tennessee State?
I stand by my point that it's easier to make it to the tourney as a mid-major winning a weak conference than being an SEC team and winning the SEC (or even coming in 5th). It's that simple. I understand you want to make it all relative to the conference the team is playing in and the the relative talent that is in that conference. But that doesn't play around here. Does the fact that the SECW has been down for some time change people's expectations of State? Since the talent is down in the SEC, people understand if MSU doesn't make the Sweet 16, right? not hardly. In fact, since the SEC is perceived as so weak, we are expected to take advantage and be even better!
I stand by my point that it's easier to make it to the tourney as a mid-major winning a weak conference than being an SEC team and winning the SEC (or even coming in 5th). It's that simple. I understand you want to make it all relative to the conference the team is playing in and the the relative talent that is in that conference. But that doesn't play around here. Does the fact that the SECW has been down for some time change people's expectations of State? Since the talent is down in the SEC, people understand if MSU doesn't make the Sweet 16, right? not hardly. In fact, since the SEC is perceived as so weak, we are expected to take advantage and be even better!
What i have continually stated is logical. It is illogical to use an OVC team and demand them finish in the top 5 of the SEC for a point to be made. Why the hell is that even part of the argument?
In what world does that make sense?
An SEC team has a significantly better chance of making the NCAAs than an OVC team. It is STATISTICALLY PROVEN. Why the hell are you still arguing this? Its friggin proven, look at the historical data.
And my original question of how this coach's resume mirrors Stans hasnt been addressed by you or anyone that has ripped on this option for a HC. How does his career mirror Stans'? I dont see it.
</p>
In what world does that make sense?
An SEC team has a significantly better chance of making the NCAAs than an OVC team. It is STATISTICALLY PROVEN. Why the hell are you still arguing this? Its friggin proven, look at the historical data.
And my original question of how this coach's resume mirrors Stans hasnt been addressed by you or anyone that has ripped on this option for a HC. How does his career mirror Stans'? I dont see it.
</p>
All I've said all along is that itis easier for a mid-major to get to the NCAA. Period. Win your rinky-dink conference and you are in. Somehow this morphed into which is more statistically probable - not the same thing. As far as the NCAAT is concerned all D1 is equal, right? The SEC and OVC each get one automatic bid. That's it. Certainly you are not arguing it's easier to win the OVC tournament than the SECt? Of course not. You are only thinking in statistics. Which is more probable. Not the same thing. Just because the SEC gets more in historically doesn't mean anything as to which is easier.
And I never commented one way or the other onthe HCyou rose as an option.</p>
And I never commented one way or the other onthe HCyou rose as an option.</p>
should be considered for MSU. Old Dominion is in the CAA so I'm confused why the OVC is in this discussion. The point of this post is to get names out there so we can discuss Stansbury replacements. Lots of people want a new coach but no names get discussed. Blaine Taylor has taken ODU to 4 NCAA's in the last 7 years. Not bad. Again I don't want him but I'd like to hear other names that would be good hires for State if Bury is retiring or whatever.
Conference A has 12 schools and gets only get 1 bid. Conference B has 12 schools and gets 4-6 on a regular basis.
Pretend you are a school that is looking to join one of the above comferences Which conference would you put your team in? Knowing nothing besides the above?
I would put my team in conference B because there is a greater chance of making the tournament. Therefore, it is EASIER to make the tournament if I am in that conference since my odds increase.
I'll let you in on some info...conference A is every low major and most all mid majors. Conference B is the SEC and most all major conferences.
Pretend you are a school that is looking to join one of the above comferences Which conference would you put your team in? Knowing nothing besides the above?
I would put my team in conference B because there is a greater chance of making the tournament. Therefore, it is EASIER to make the tournament if I am in that conference since my odds increase.
I'll let you in on some info...conference A is every low major and most all mid majors. Conference B is the SEC and most all major conferences.
argument. You're odds are better in a major conference because more teams are taken. However you have to be a major school to get offered to be in such conference. Old Dominion is not going to get asked to be in a major conference ever!! See Boise State football. Even with that schools ridiculous success in football they are not getting asked by the top 4 major conferences to join.
He is saying it's easier to win the OVC tournament and get a bid because the teams you are playing against are ****, ALL OF THEM. Even though 5 teams might come out of the SEC, it's much harder to be one of those 5 teams than it is to run through the OVC joke tournament. The NCAA tournament is one of the greatest things on Earth, but it's getting more and more lopsided with teams that don't deserve to be there. They might as well just let the entire Big East in, even though none of them will do anything. Maybe if they let them all in finally one will make it through based on numbers alone. <div>
</div><div>Edited to add: I don't know how the OVC got brought into this but the point remains - OVC, CAA, either way, same thing.</div>
</div><div>Edited to add: I don't know how the OVC got brought into this but the point remains - OVC, CAA, either way, same thing.</div>
stupid point. It's a stupid argument. The conferences are paired together with what is supposed to be equal teams. If Duke was in the CAA then yea it would be easier for them to run through that joke of a conference. ODU is not a traditional power. George Mason is in the CAA. Remember them? They have a final four appearance recently and are back in the NCAA again this year. The argument is relative towards the school. It's never easier to win any conference when you are the type of school within that conference. Your argument is the same thing as saying Tiger Woods would destroy the Nationwide tour. Duh!! Is it harder to win the Nationwide tour if you're a player whose skill level is deserving of that tour or harder for Tiger Woods to finish in the top half of the PGA tour? It's all relative based on your skill level. It's much harder for an average team to win an average conference than it is an Elite team to finish in the middle of an Elite conference. This argument has made me more stupid. Thanks
First, I highly doubt that. Second, I wasn't replying to you. The point is that a good coach can take a team in a conference like the CAA and smoke the other **** teams in that conference because those other teams are garbage, especially since all they have to do is beat a few teams one weekend in the tournament and they get in the NCAA tournament. That does not mean that the same coach can come into a major conference where the other coaches are better and the talent is better and do the same thing. Old Dominion's coach in the SEC would be another Andy Kennedy at best, someone dubmasses on this board would talk about as some sort of incredible coach, yet hasn't done anything in his career.DAWG61 said: