Over/Under 4..How many more games does Ray win this year.
- Thread starter fishwater99
- Start date
Like an egg, over easy.
Yes we need players. But so does Vandy, South Carolina, Georgia, Auburn, and Texas A&M. And we get to play all of them. Some of them twice.
Yes we need players. But so does Vandy, South Carolina, Georgia, Auburn, and Texas A&M. And we get to play all of them. Some of them twice.
I'll go over. We'll bite some people at home.
I feel like our D needs to step up some too. We're last, or were last, in defensive field goal percentage. We do have some quick hands though.
I feel like our D needs to step up some too. We're last, or were last, in defensive field goal percentage. We do have some quick hands though.
Right, and five or six more would put us at 16 or 17 wins with a conference record of 6-12 or 7-11 heading to Atlanta. I don't think anyone would term that a failure. Five is a great target to shoot for. That assures us of no worse than a .500 overall record for the year (16-15 headed to Atlanta).
Top end goal is .500 in the conference, which means we need eight more wins. These are winnable games if we play our best: TAMU, Auburn, at Ole Miss, at Vandy, at TAMU, Georgia, at Auburn, at LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, at Georgia, South Carolina. We won't win all of those, and probably won't go 8-4 in them, but as of today, none of them are 100% certain losses. Hard to see the others as anything but L's (Florida, Kentucky, and at Missouri).
Top end goal is .500 in the conference, which means we need eight more wins. These are winnable games if we play our best: TAMU, Auburn, at Ole Miss, at Vandy, at TAMU, Georgia, at Auburn, at LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, at Georgia, South Carolina. We won't win all of those, and probably won't go 8-4 in them, but as of today, none of them are 100% certain losses. Hard to see the others as anything but L's (Florida, Kentucky, and at Missouri).
For reference - his last 7 years where I think a lot of us found fault...
| 2005–06 | Mississippi State | 15–15 | 5–11 | 5th (West) | |
| 2006–07 | Mississippi State | 21–14 | 8–8 | T–1st (West) | NIT Final Four |
| 2007–08 | Mississippi State | 23–11 | 12–4 | 1st (West) | NCAA 2nd Round |
| 2008–09 | Mississippi State | 23–13 | 9–7 | 3rd (West) | NCAA 1st Round |
| 2009–10 | Mississippi State | 24–12 | 9–7 | T–1st (West) | NIT 2nd Round |
| 2010–11 | Mississippi State | 17–13 | 9–7 | 2nd (West) | |
| 2011–12 | Mississippi State | 21–12 | 8–8 | T–6th | NIT 1st Round |
Last edited:
2011/12 was the straw that broke the camel's back. We went from #15 in the country in January to not making the tournament in basically two months. That's an epic collapse. If that team makes the NCAAs, even with another early exist, Stans is probably still our coach, at least in 2012-13.
Last edited:
I think it was the combination of the 2010/11 fiasco (Hawaii fight) and the 2011/12 collapse that did him in. He could have probably survived 2011/12 if it hadn't come on the heels of the previous year. Looking back, we should have probably either fired him after 2010/2011 or kept him on after 2011/2012.
I still can't get over the fact that MSU would fire any coach for barely missing the NCAA tournament, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding it.
Do you remember how we were only 3 games over .500 in the last 4 conference seasons under Stansbury?
Looks like your version of the bottom end played out over and again.
I cant believe you dismiss a total loss of control over the team/program as 'circumstances' and claim that such a loss of control shouldnt be taken into account.
Or stopped LSU (what was that G's name?) from going Coast to Coast in the final two seconds.
Or beat Baylor early that year on a neutral court.
Or beat Baylor early that year on a neutral court.
We made the tournament 2 times and honestly on "merit" - 1 time in those 7 years. That's the judgment of success in basketball. NIT's really don't count.
If we didn't win the SEC tournament in 2009, we weren't going to make it regardless.
If we didn't win the SEC tournament in 2009, we weren't going to make it regardless.
Correct DS. From 2006 on, it was not a good ride.
2006 - we were rebuilding; about as good as we could have expected
2007 - won the West which was nothing; lost all of our decent OOC games; NIT was where we belonged
2008 - one of if not the most disappointing team Stansbury had; lost every OOC game that was meaningful; let Shan Foster beat us by himself; lost to UGA in the SEC tournament when they had already played a game that morning; so we end up an 8 seed when we should have been a 5, and we had to play #1 Memphis in the second round. Then just to show how good we could have been, we played Memphis to the wire.
2009 - a magical run in Tampa put us in the NCAAs but we lost every OOC game of note and struggled to a 9-7 league record; the whole SEC was terrible that year
2010 - another disaster; started with Rider, continued with Richmond and Western Kentucky, built steam with Alabama and Arkansas, and came to a head at Auburn and on senior day when Tennessee destroyed us
2011 - a disaster of a season that included the Hawaii trip; even at 17-13 I think everyone was just relieved to see that garbage end without any postseason
2012 - the February implosion which we all should have seen coming throughout the season
Yes, we were in the postseason those seasons, but I think most people judge seasons based on their own personal expectations, and for me, 2008-2012 were all short of expectations.
2006 - we were rebuilding; about as good as we could have expected
2007 - won the West which was nothing; lost all of our decent OOC games; NIT was where we belonged
2008 - one of if not the most disappointing team Stansbury had; lost every OOC game that was meaningful; let Shan Foster beat us by himself; lost to UGA in the SEC tournament when they had already played a game that morning; so we end up an 8 seed when we should have been a 5, and we had to play #1 Memphis in the second round. Then just to show how good we could have been, we played Memphis to the wire.
2009 - a magical run in Tampa put us in the NCAAs but we lost every OOC game of note and struggled to a 9-7 league record; the whole SEC was terrible that year
2010 - another disaster; started with Rider, continued with Richmond and Western Kentucky, built steam with Alabama and Arkansas, and came to a head at Auburn and on senior day when Tennessee destroyed us
2011 - a disaster of a season that included the Hawaii trip; even at 17-13 I think everyone was just relieved to see that garbage end without any postseason
2012 - the February implosion which we all should have seen coming throughout the season
Yes, we were in the postseason those seasons, but I think most people judge seasons based on their own personal expectations, and for me, 2008-2012 were all short of expectations.
Amazing how much more potential this team would have had with a healthy Jalen Steele (3 point shooter) and a Wendell Lewis (another Big man) following team rules.
Did you follow the team 2 seasons ago? If you dont see how the loss of control related to the w/l column, I dont think there is anything I can type that will change your mind.
We were 3 games over .500 in conference play over the last 4 seasons. That, to me, speaks volumes of how much control Stans had over the program when you look at what sort of talent we had each season and how good/bad the SEC was during that stretch(ill give you a hint, it was on the bad side of good/bad)
We were 3 games over .500 in conference play over the last 4 seasons. That, to me, speaks volumes of how much control Stans had over the program when you look at what sort of talent we had each season and how good/bad the SEC was during that stretch(ill give you a hint, it was on the bad side of good/bad)
I wish I had the time or inclination to go back and see which posters defend Stans but wanted to or want to fire Mullen.
And for the record I wanted to go a different direction than Rick Stansbury. I'll also LIKELY (depending on circumstances) want to let Mullen go if after year 10 we are still consistenly only averaging 7 wins.
And for the record I wanted to go a different direction than Rick Stansbury. I'll also LIKELY (depending on circumstances) want to let Mullen go if after year 10 we are still consistenly only averaging 7 wins.
Yes it would be nice if we end the season at .500
Not sure how that applies to the discussion of Stans losing control of the team, but yep I agree itd be nice if we are at .500
Not sure how that applies to the discussion of Stans losing control of the team, but yep I agree itd be nice if we are at .500
Again, I find it ironic that we are discussing a basketball coach at MSU in a negative light because one of his trips to the NCAAs was based on being SEC Tournament Champions.
I think you guys are trying a little too hard. Considering he got fired for those records over the last 4 years, wouldn't that have been considered "the bottom"?
I don't have to look to know those that wanted Stansbury fired also wanted Mullen fired.
It's kind of the cool thing to be the first to turn against the coach at MSU.
Personally, I thought our talent level slipped at the end of Stansbury's time at MSU. I made a post on Gene's Page early in the year Stansbury's last year that our inability to play defense at the guard positions and lack of depth would cause a team with some good individual talents to struggle, and that turned out to be correct. Our top 15 ranking was based on beating top 25 Arizona and Texas A&M. Arizona ended up in the NIT with us and Texas A&M ended up with a losing record. You can't play four of your starters 35 minutes per game all season long and not expect them to fade at the end of the season.
On the contrary, the anti-Mullen crowd is the same as the anti-Ray crowd who wish we had Stans back. A lot of the most ardent Stans-haters never lost faith in Mullen.
That season we underachieved horribly. We were stacked with talent and had pretty good depth too. We had 3 all sec players on that team, The national defensive player of the year, and we played Memphis closer than anybody (other than Kansas, obviously); if we had won more of our non cons that year, like Miami at home, Clemson, whom neither of which were very good, we'd have been a higher seed in the tourney. We also lost to Miami of Ohio that year; turrible.
I agree that our ranking was based on beating some teams that ended up not great themselves. We were like Miami football this past season- they beat Florida and are way up in the rankings only to be exposed as not good and their key win ends up being against a terrible Florida team.
But I cant agree on the talent slipping.
In his last season he had-
- an efficient big man in Moultrie who was a 1st round NBA pick and a double double machine. He was also an AllSEC first team pick.
- a veteran PG and team leader in Bost who started most every game in his career and was an AllSEC first team pick.
- a 5* starter in Hood who was on the AllSEC Freshman team.
Those 3 alone should show our talent hadnt slipped.
Add in Sidney, who was an incredible talent, and Bryant who was a solid role player and that is a group of 5 that has more talent than maybe 10 other teams in the country.
Our downfall was that the pieces didnt mesh well enough together and individuals didnt play to their talent level.
Talent hadnt dropped- control of the program had dropped.
Moultrie and Hood were elite players, although Hood was a true freshman. Bost was a very good college player. Bryan Bryant would be a good backup, Sidney was awful, and we might as well have not had a bench. When you have a few good players who are forced to play too many minutes and no supporting players, then you have a mediocre team. (FYI, I thought all season that we should have forced minutes out of our bench to get rest for the starters. The bench was so bad we would have lost a few games along the way, but probably could have avoided the swoon and made the NCAA tournament.)
I don't see how people can criticize Stansbury losing control of the program by bringing in Sidney, who turned out to be garbage, but at the same time say that Stansbury should have done better because he had Sidney, who was an incredible talent. If Sidney had played even up to his earlier standards at MSU, we would have made the tournament, but he was awful that year, just awful, although, amazingly, he was still better than Wendell Lewis.
I don't see how people can criticize Stansbury losing control of the program by bringing in Sidney, who turned out to be garbage, but at the same time say that Stansbury should have done better because he had Sidney, who was an incredible talent. If Sidney had played even up to his earlier standards at MSU, we would have made the tournament, but he was awful that year, just awful, although, amazingly, he was still better than Wendell Lewis.
Fishwater is a great example. Went on about a 5 year crusade slamming Stans for anything and everything. Now he's on year 2 of his "Mullen has never beaten a top 20 team!" crusade. One in the same.