Our administration is not surprised about the basketball situation
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
- Status
Recruiting high quality talent with major flaws in motivation caused the problems "discipline wise, how players were developed, and how how we played strategy wise". If you can't get them to do **** then they get in trouble, don't develop, and you have to change your game plan. Can you imagine how different our game planning would have been if Renardo Sidney would have not eaten so many juicy jumbos and instead could run up and down the court every single play? How easy would it have been to stop jacking up three's like crazy if our guys fought like hell for position down low? How would our strategy change if we were able to score a significant number of points after our guys banged the boards consistently for offensive rebounds? All of these things created a culture amongst our team that was never going to change while Rick was the coach. We earned a reputation in the media and in the basketball world as dysfunctional. It was deserved.
Rick may have brought in better raw talent, but he also brought in some of the most uninspired talent I have every witnessed on a basketball court.
Rick may have brought in better raw talent, but he also brought in some of the most uninspired talent I have every witnessed on a basketball court.
Really??? You really are a Stans Homer......
How can you not see that it was time for a change.
I am not saying Ray is the answer, but we need a new coach several years ago...
How can you not see that it was time for a change.
I am not saying Ray is the answer, but we need a new coach several years ago...
They are friends from the same Purdue background. Counzo saying complimentary things about Rick Ray means nothing. Would you expect him to say he isn't experienced and will get eaten alive in the SEC? Of course not. Rick Ray was an assistant coach at a very average ACC school. Counzo Martin already was a HC and a successful one. I hope Stricklin found a diamond in the rough but I doubt it. The more likely scenario here is that Ray is the basketball version of Croom and 4 years from now you will see the much better hire like Mullen was over Croom. What seems obvious to me is that Stricklin didn't feel like he had enough time to really get a coach we all wanted or he got shot down by 6-8 different names first. Which brings me back to the question I brought up when Stansbury got fired. Why not put the interim head coach tag over Phil Cunningham for this season and give Stricklin ample time to make a great hire? Would we have been any worse than we already are? No and we also wouldn't be stuck with Rick Ray for 4 years. We basically got a 4 year suspension from good basketball with this hire. I'll cheer like a mother17er for Ray but don't expect me to not identify **** as **** when we are being forced to smell it.
Would you?
Everything that happened, sans Gray's decommitment, was going to happen anyway under Rick Stansbury. Hood's transfer was already decided. Sid was already gone. Moultrie was leaving. So, we would have equal talent with no coaching, no conditioning, and no development. You REALLY think he was going to have a good year this year?
If you deny that this was going to be a terrible year regardless, you really don't need to be talking basketball at all.
How this could have been saved? If Stans walks away last year, after the most embarrassing season in our history, you sell a coach on an attractive situation with what was projected at one time to be THREE Nba draft picks, a 5* FR and 2 4* FR already signed.
No one cared when Stans ran off Gardner last year for basically nothing(blowing up on twitter about Stans LYING to him). Think we could use him now?
For the record, where did ANYONE predict 5 wins this year? We are going to win 10-15 games, going about 4-14 or 5-13 in the SEC, 7-5 or 8-4 nonconference.
Because, at some point, you HAVE to excise the fat
Otherwise we were just going to be stuck missing the NCAA every year in dramatic, depressing fashion like we have been. Do you really just want to be mediocre every year and never improve for the rest of eternity? Because that's about the most "MSU" attitude I can think of. If you want to spend the rest of your basketball watching life watching uninspired, disorganized, ******** college basketball, then by all means, go out and find you a perennial NIT team to cheer for.
If it takes Ray a year or three to rebuild, then so be it. But a change had to be made. If Ray isn't the guy to do it, then once that is apparent, lets go find the guy who is.
What will you say if Ray takes this team and wins 15 games? Will you still be doing chin ups from Stansbury's wang then?
Otherwise we were just going to be stuck missing the NCAA every year in dramatic, depressing fashion like we have been. Do you really just want to be mediocre every year and never improve for the rest of eternity? Because that's about the most "MSU" attitude I can think of. If you want to spend the rest of your basketball watching life watching uninspired, disorganized, ******** college basketball, then by all means, go out and find you a perennial NIT team to cheer for.
If it takes Ray a year or three to rebuild, then so be it. But a change had to be made. If Ray isn't the guy to do it, then once that is apparent, lets go find the guy who is.
What will you say if Ray takes this team and wins 15 games? Will you still be doing chin ups from Stansbury's wang then?
And that ignores the likelihood that attendance is dead until the next time we have a successful team. "Successful" might qualify as NIT four years from now, but the numbers for the last decade show that State fans only show up when we're winning, and winning big. Throw the attendance argument out.
Ray will get 3 years
Year 1: Total pass. The roster was going to suck regardless and then you have a injury and kick two contributing players off before practice even starts. Scott should evaluate on a few things. Recruiting, player development, morale and on court hustle.
Year 2: Need to see some signs of life. Talent level should appear to be raised, second year players need to make developmental leaps and recruiting should continue to be good.
Year 3: Show me something. If we're not competing for a NIT bid and recruiting hasn't gone well then this might be the end of the line.
Basketball is about talent, talent, hustle and coaching. I get the feeling he's at least an average X & O guys so can he get some talent in here and then get them to commit to the style he wants to play. If not, we're toast and we need to go make a change and find a recruiting specialist again.
Year 1: Total pass. The roster was going to suck regardless and then you have a injury and kick two contributing players off before practice even starts. Scott should evaluate on a few things. Recruiting, player development, morale and on court hustle.
Year 2: Need to see some signs of life. Talent level should appear to be raised, second year players need to make developmental leaps and recruiting should continue to be good.
Year 3: Show me something. If we're not competing for a NIT bid and recruiting hasn't gone well then this might be the end of the line.
Basketball is about talent, talent, hustle and coaching. I get the feeling he's at least an average X & O guys so can he get some talent in here and then get them to commit to the style he wants to play. If not, we're toast and we need to go make a change and find a recruiting specialist again.
Anyone else think this is eerily reminiscent of where we were in football 4-6 years ago?
Stansbury is to Sherrill as Croom is to Ray...
the only question is who we equate with Mullin?
I agree. What we did was probably worse. Coach O was a bigger name than who we hired in basketball. Ray may turn out well but you can't pretend he is even close to what most here that wanted Stans gone thought we would be able to get. The names that were kicked around here were impressive.
Why can't Stansbury be to Polk as Ray is to Cohen?
That like of thinking is just being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic.
I thought your first post in this thread, your OP was one of the best you have had, but maybe this one is even better.
I guess everybody would be glowing if we had hired BP but then in a few years the program would be crap and we would have crap for a coach and in trouble with you know who.
JMHO
And thus, the epitome of MSU fan thinking. Hell, it's the same reason there's been so much bitching about a 56-9 beatdown of JSU here for a week straight. There's a reason we can't stand prosperity and it mostly revolves around so many of our fans and administration having the "We're just little ol' MSU doin' the best we can do. Be happy we aren't [insert school]." Thank God Stricklin and Keenum don't think like this. We'll at least have a fighting chance with them in charge now.
This. Not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but 5 different people just on this thread have said that Ray is the new Croom, despite NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that he will be so incompetent. There is one thing Croom and Ray do have in common, but it has nothing to do with how they ran their first offseason as coach.
If, years down the road, Ray turns out to be as incompetent as Croom, forcing the team to a system that play's against, rather than into, its strengths, if Ray is incompetent at recruiting, game management, and player development, and only a few games due to luck and good assistants (who promptly leave), then I'll eat crow. Until then, it's absurd to make the comparison.
The only thing I find amusing about this is remembering
all the "mediocre" posts about Stansbury and we would instantly find success once he was shown the door. No rebuilding would happen, we would just instantly be able to recruit who we wanted to coach and who we want to play if only we got rid of Stan. No one said he had to leave things in whatever shape in any of these posts. Now he is the George Bush of MSU basketball.
I really hope that Ray can do this rebuilding process. I don't anticipate seeing us play post season basketball on CBS for quite some time. I really wish for Stan's sake he had retired a couple of years ago, but I imagine he would still be blamed.
all the "mediocre" posts about Stansbury and we would instantly find success once he was shown the door. No rebuilding would happen, we would just instantly be able to recruit who we wanted to coach and who we want to play if only we got rid of Stan. No one said he had to leave things in whatever shape in any of these posts. Now he is the George Bush of MSU basketball.
I really hope that Ray can do this rebuilding process. I don't anticipate seeing us play post season basketball on CBS for quite some time. I really wish for Stan's sake he had retired a couple of years ago, but I imagine he would still be blamed.
I don't believe any of our fans are hoping Ray fails. I do think that most are extremely disappointed with the hire though and that includes me. How long do we have to shut up about the fact it is a total crap hire? I sincerely hope I'm wrong but we hired a complete no name assistant from Clemson. Couldn't we of atleast found an assistant on a perennial top 15 program? MSU has a better basketball program than Clemson since Stansbury took over so we essentially hired an assistant with zero head coaching experience from a worse basketball program that isn't even in the SEC. He got hired because he gives one hell of an interview. Is that really how we determine who should be the head coach of MSU? How great they sell themselves in an interview? What other reasons on top of his interview made him the clear cut choice to be Head Coach? He got some great references? So what! What assistant cant produce great references? I'll support MSU regardless who is the coach but I'm kinda getting sick of eating the fact Stricklin made an out of nowhere hire of a complete no name coach. Can you not atleast admit it is an extremely puzzling hire and then we can all get on with trying our best to support the decision? Go Dawgs
Last edited:
You sound like Obama in that last paragraph. In my opinion, our admin blew this one. We had a different guy in the bag...that guy had his staff in place...and it was an impressive one. Other "interests" played a big part in this. Now, that is a fact. Oh well, now I have to decide if I want to spend a few thousand dollars over the next few years so that we can start winning again. So far, I do not see the value in it. I have been a Bulldog basketball fan over 3 decades and at times have been privy to "inside" info. At other times I haven't had a clue about what was going on with the program. This hire may be a good one; I do not know about him. However, I do know about the other guy who for a few hours thought he was the choice...then he got a call that said otherwise. That is also a fact.
Quars, Ive got to disagree with you and pat on this one, and I don't disagree with either of you very often. There may be a few people on here that make the Croom comparison for that reason you speak of....but I don't think many, if any, are even thinking of that. I feel like the comparisons come from the fact that both were not big names, neither had head coaching experience, both followed "players coaches" that we're known for a lack of discipline, and both were supposed to completely "change the culture" of said program. If we had hired a preppy white assistant that nobody had ever heard of from Virginia Tech, the feelings would be the EXACT same...at least from my point of view.
Ain't got a dog in this fight (except I thought it was time for Stans to go) but ain't no way in hell we win 4-5 games in the conference next year. I'll be surprised if we win 1.
"...you can pretty much count on 4 years."
Coach, I will be sorely disappointed in our administration's hire if it takes him 4 years to get to the postseason. At the end of year two he better have us ready to compete for the dance in year three...good talent, good discipline, good recruiting class coming in...or I'm calling for his head.
Coach, I will be sorely disappointed in our administration's hire if it takes him 4 years to get to the postseason. At the end of year two he better have us ready to compete for the dance in year three...good talent, good discipline, good recruiting class coming in...or I'm calling for his head.
Most assistants don't have as good a resume as Ray has. And, just like I tried to tell you guys for 2 years, top coaches weren't exactly going to be beating down our door to take this job. Nationally, it's still viewed as one of the worst jobs in the 6 major conferences (the Big East is still a major for basketball). That's just a fact. Dan Mullen was a young, unproven assistant too and that worked out pretty good. Hell, Rick Stansbury was a young, unproven assistant and that worked out good too for 9 years. I wasn't impressed with the hire either when I first heard about it. But I actually looked at his resume, what others were saying about him, and how he has handled himself since he was hiredm and I've been impressed. Just give the guy a 17ing chance. The absolute worst thing MSU basketball, or any of our other sports, needs is for the fanbase to hamstring the coach and not give him a chance to prove himself. We seriously have some of the worst fans in the world.
So You think the Mullen hire and the Stansbury hire are equivalent to the Ray hire? Not in my opinion. If you really think that, I'll lay out the major differences, then you take a shot at disputing it.
Mullen: top coordinator at a program that was in back to back national championships. One of the hotter up and coming assistants. He was going to be a head coach somewhere soon.
Stansbury: Already an assistant at the school. Put together the recruiting class that went to a final 4 at MSU. A natural selection to succeed Williams.
Ray: Unknown assistant at a mid level ACC school. Not on anybody's radar for a coaching gig. Plan D or E depending on who you talk to close to the search. Great guy, some good background as an assistant.
So, tell us again why you think the situations are equivalent?
Honestly you really can't call anything a crap hire until the guy actually coaches. Calling him a crap hire before he has the chance to do what he is paid to do is ignorant and irresponsible. If the guy ends up sucking then yes it was a crap hire. If he ends up being the next John Wooden then it wouldn't be a crap hire would it? You judge a coach after the fact, not before. It may have been an underwhelming hire or meh hire, but it cant be a bad hire yet.
And yes I would rather expect 5 wins and get 5 wins, then expect 25 wins and get 20 year after year after year after year. I mean when was the Stansbury era supposed to end? People are saying that Ray should get 3 years to make the tournament or he is gone, four at the max. This is with a brand new team. Stansbury was our coach for 13 years and couldn't make the tournametn his last 4 years with a much more stacked team than this. Double standard maybe. Why would you hold Stansbury to a different standard than Ray at that point with the players we have had?
Stansbury sucked at the end of his tenure. I mean he really did. I'm glad for his services as a coach but it was time to go. People always throw out that he's the winningest coach in our history. But lets be real, we have historically sucked as a basketball team. It wasn't that hard for him to be the winningest.
And yes I would rather expect 5 wins and get 5 wins, then expect 25 wins and get 20 year after year after year after year. I mean when was the Stansbury era supposed to end? People are saying that Ray should get 3 years to make the tournament or he is gone, four at the max. This is with a brand new team. Stansbury was our coach for 13 years and couldn't make the tournametn his last 4 years with a much more stacked team than this. Double standard maybe. Why would you hold Stansbury to a different standard than Ray at that point with the players we have had?
Stansbury sucked at the end of his tenure. I mean he really did. I'm glad for his services as a coach but it was time to go. People always throw out that he's the winningest coach in our history. But lets be real, we have historically sucked as a basketball team. It wasn't that hard for him to be the winningest.
It's a crap hire because he was hired for knowing Matt Painter, Counzo Martin and apparently does exceptionally well in an interview setting selling himself. Scott Stricklin ate it up faster than you destroy turkey on thanksgiving. Please show me where on his resume are his great achievements warranting a HC job at a Big6 school? He went from the outhouse to the penthouse in literally one day. Here's his resume. He makes friends well with his peers and bosses but what are they going to say when a reporter asks them their opinion of Ray? They are going to say extremely positive stuff and they would say the exact same crap about any former co-worker that just got a HC job. Atleast Croom was from the Green Bay Packers. http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticl...B_OEM_ID=16800&ATCLID=205407652&Q_SEASON=2012
Like I said, you CANT call it a crap hire YET
It may turn out to be in the end, but to say that it is already is dumb. Will it be a crap hire if we make the sweet sixteen in 3 years? That would just make you look ignorant for dooming the guy before he even starts. But of course you would claim you were wrong and say you were just happy that he turned out good. That's BS. Since you hate the guy before he even starts, you better hate him the entire time good or bad, because according to you he is crap no matter what.
And he was not hired at all because of Cuonzo Martin. He was hired because he was an assistant on very good Purdue teams under a nationally known coach and he was an associate head coach at a big 6 conference school. Was he anyone's first pick? no. But don't act like the guy is a mechanic trying to do an accountant's job.
It may turn out to be in the end, but to say that it is already is dumb. Will it be a crap hire if we make the sweet sixteen in 3 years? That would just make you look ignorant for dooming the guy before he even starts. But of course you would claim you were wrong and say you were just happy that he turned out good. That's BS. Since you hate the guy before he even starts, you better hate him the entire time good or bad, because according to you he is crap no matter what.
And he was not hired at all because of Cuonzo Martin. He was hired because he was an assistant on very good Purdue teams under a nationally known coach and he was an associate head coach at a big 6 conference school. Was he anyone's first pick? no. But don't act like the guy is a mechanic trying to do an accountant's job.
You honestly don't believe that he will win 4 or 5 games out of a new 18 in a conference schedule? You have lost your mind.
Things people around here need to realize that things are never as good or bad as they "seem." By conference play time, people are going to be RAVING about the potential of Craig Sword, Fred Thomas, and Gavin Ware, and also about the improvement of Jalen Steele and Wendell Lewis. Also about the effort and energy the team plays with. It won't be translating to wins yet, but it will be a clearly good formula. Watch and see.
Bookmark it.
We are going to be 0'fer this season. It's going to take more than 2 season's to recover from losing every game. It may take 6 to 8 years and probably another coach.
I don't hate Ray and I don't think he is crap. I think the hire is crap. There's a difference here you are not understanding. He's not qualified maybe should be the word usage I'm using instead of crap. If you were to ask Stricklin to write down the top 100 names the day Stansbury got fired to replace him do you honestly believe Rick Ray cracks that list? Does he even crack the top 200 names? Something happened dramatically in the last week of the search and PRESTO Rick Ray is the new coach. That makes the hire crap. Not the individual.
Way to completely change the discussion
You didn't say a damn thing about the hire of Ray. You said you would have kept Stansbury another year and compared the situation to Ole Miss's firing of Cutcliffe. Those situations weren't comparable, as I showed, so you changed the discussion.
And for the record, I couldn't give less of a **** how big of a name a coaching hire is.
You didn't say a damn thing about the hire of Ray. You said you would have kept Stansbury another year and compared the situation to Ole Miss's firing of Cutcliffe. Those situations weren't comparable, as I showed, so you changed the discussion.
And for the record, I couldn't give less of a **** how big of a name a coaching hire is.
The only person I remember saying that was the straw man built by the Stansbury apologists.
Please enlighten me on Stans current position. I would love to hear your insight.
How is he not qualified? He's been an assistant at several programs, including in the Big 10 (a much stronger basketball league than the SEC). EVERY school he's been at until Clemson had their most success in at least a decade while he was there. He has a much stronger resume than our last 2 basketball coaches did and those hires turned out OK for the most part.
Neither Williams or Stansbury were on anybody's radar for a coaching gig when they got the job either. In fact, the reaction even among the MSU fans was "who's he?" even though both had been assistants at MSU. The only difference between Ray and them is that Ray had more success as an assistant and he did it somewhere else.
- Status