Some figures for Stansbury

[ninja dawg]

Just to add a little to fuel the fire on the discussion of Stans, I looked up some figures recruiting wise plus wins and losses in SEC play. Here is what i came up with:
1) Since 2005 according to Scout there have been 6 teams in the SEC with recruiting classes ranked in the top 30 an equal amount or more times than MSU(2)(Arkansas,Alabama,Kentucky,LSU,Tenn,Florida).

2)Since the start of the 05-06 season, MSU is 40-33 in conference play including SEC tournament games.

3)Of the 6 teams above 3 of them have had more recruiting classes ranked in the top 30 since 2005 than MSU(Alabama(3),Kentucky(4),Florida(5)).

4)Since the start of the 05-06 season, MSU is 11-7 against those teams including SEC tournament games.

Now I know there are certain factors such as some players dont ever make it to campus, over-hype of players, or transfers, but the data shows at least half of the other teams in the SEC are getting players that are just as good or better than State. However, year in and year out MSU is competeing for a top spot in the conference. Maybe the rankings are garbage and the "experts" dont have a clue. I agree that Stans makes some questionable decisions evey year, but to win with equal or lesser talent than your peers should show some form of GOOD coaching.
Let the BASHING begin.

 

[ninja dawg]

Just to add a little to fuel the fire on the discussion of Stans, I looked up some figures recruiting wise plus wins and losses in SEC play. Here is what i came up with:
1) Since 2005 according to Scout there have been 6 teams in the SEC with recruiting classes ranked in the top 30 an equal amount or more times than MSU(2)(Arkansas,Alabama,Kentucky,LSU,Tenn,Florida).

2)Since the start of the 05-06 season, MSU is 40-33 in conference play including SEC tournament games.

3)Of the 6 teams above 3 of them have had more recruiting classes ranked in the top 30 since 2005 than MSU(Alabama(3),Kentucky(4),Florida(5)).

4)Since the start of the 05-06 season, MSU is 11-7 against those teams including SEC tournament games.

Now I know there are certain factors such as some players dont ever make it to campus, over-hype of players, or transfers, but the data shows at least half of the other teams in the SEC are getting players that are just as good or better than State. However, year in and year out MSU is competeing for a top spot in the conference. Maybe the rankings are garbage and the "experts" dont have a clue. I agree that Stans makes some questionable decisions evey year, but to win with equal or lesser talent than your peers should show some form of GOOD coaching.
Let the BASHING begin.

 

[Coach34]

I dont think anybody has ever said Stansbury couldnt win in the SEC. Whats next...you gonna tell us that John Calipari won games in Conference USA when he coached at Memphis?

 

[msu21]

Here comes WHATEVER to the rescue...
</p>

 

[ninja dawg]

i did it just so you would waste your time replying. i guess i should have made my point more obvious which is that he must doing a good job of coaching up his players who allegedly have equal or lesser talent than the other teams seeing as how he is winning more so than not. While there are some people on here that say he is a terrible coach.

 

[Hanmudog]

Is that winning the West is not as easy as some of you like to paint it. Look at the money, fan support, facilitiles, and talent that Arkansas has had yet I can't tell you the last time they won the West. LSU and Alabama have had alot of talent too but they do not routinely win the West either. It is easy to take for granted when you do it so often. Meanwhile all these guys like Brady, Gottfried, and Heath have had losing records to Stansbury while getting as good if not better recruiting classes most of the time.
I realized this is the point where you say winning the West does not get you into the NCAA tourney and a couple of times it hasn't. However, most years the West champ does get into the NCAAs.

 

[ninja dawg]

oh and also coach 34... how did i know you would be the first to reply. i think you sit around waiting on a stansbury thread so you can beat off to it.</p>

 

[Coach34]

from the rest of us- winning the West just isnt that big of a deal- it just gets you a day off at the SEC Tourney

We think its more about playing better teams OOC, winning games you should win, and positioning yourself as the highest seed you can come March in the NCAA Tourney.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

is because Stans has proven he does it about as good as anyone. So, they must be discounted as much as possible. "He plays those teams every year, so he knows how to prepare for them". What? Seriously? So shouldn't we always win conference games in every sport? I mean we play them EVERY year, we should know how to prepare for them, right? Someone needs to tell Mullen that 8-0 and maybe 7-1 is all that's acceptable in league play. He gets to play those teams every year so there shouldn't be any surprises.

 

[Columbus Dawg]

because a lot of people are willing to live with sub-par coaching as long as he continues to recruit really well. But what you are saying, and I have said this too, is that recruiting hasn't been that great either.

Stans did get a huge 2 year boost with the transfer of Lawrence Roberts and Shane Power.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

is that Stans recruiting isn't as productive as some want to believe and his coaching is better than some want to believe. Bounds said this morning that 90-95% of tha fanbase is perfectly happy with Stansbury. I think that's about right.</p>

 

[patdog]

Especially given the resources we have compared to the resources most everybody else in the conference has.

 

[Columbus Dawg]

his coaching is better than some want to believe.

Good luck with that.

 

[AlCoDog]

and I will add that the other teams also play us every year with the same opportunity to prepare.

 

[dosequisdawg]

Either his recruiting is underrated or his coaching is underrated, because he's outperforming teams who are in equal or better situations. If it's the other schools in the West that are under-performing, therefore inflating Stans' results, I wonder how much their fans must complain about their coach.

Wasn't there a thread a few months ago arguing that we undervalue Stansbury's coaching ability because his recruiting isn't actually as good as we like to think it is?

 

[8dog]

but I feel like we have more talent than the team we are playing on most nights.

No, he isn't beating Carolina and Duke out for guys, but we aren't exactly trotting Jimmy Chitwood and 4 slouches out there.

 

[hatfieldms]

is that Stans recruiting isn't as productive as some want to believe and his coaching is better than some want to believe. Bounds said this morning that 90-95% of tha fanbase is perfectly happy with Stansbury. I think that's about right.</p>

Exactly

 

[Coach34]

First of all- I've never uttered this statement because I think its dumb too

"He plays those teams every year, so he knows how to prepare for them"

I cant begin to tell you why Stansbury can win conference games, yet lose OOC to teams that are headscratchers. The only explanation I can come up with is the fact that the SEC has dropped to a 6th rate conference and the gap between it and the mid-majors is very small. Losses to people like San Diego, Rider, and Charlotte seem to support this theory....

Winning conference games are important- because they are positioning you for seeding come March. But winning the weak side of a 6th rate conference is no reason for celebration- it just gets you a day off for the SEC Tourney.

But the fact remains, basketball is not to the level football and baseball are.

Winning the West in football makes you a top 10 football team.
Winning the West in baseball gets you a national seed

Winning the West in basketball might make you one of the top 64. Most years yes, not every time.

 

[ninja dawg]

but I feel like we have more talent than the team we are playing on most nights

i agree for the most part, but would you contribute this to better coaching or being able to recruit players that exceed their projected potential?</p>

 

[el capitan]

which is the main reason we're able to outperform those teams that are ranked higher than us in recruiting. While I have been and will remain skeptical of his coaching and irritated by his inability to keep players, I do not at all discount what he's been able to do in the SEC. The bottom line is he hasn't gotten it done when it matters. If he doesn't get it done this year, I think he needs to feel some heat. I know this won't happen, because I realize I am one of the minorities in our fan base who is not content with just winning the West every other year.

 

[wbc40]

nm

 

[Seinfeld]

While I would not be fully against going in another direction, you have to wonder what Byrne would be thinking. Would he be willing to fire a coach that consistently wins and creates season ticket sell outs for the Hump? Not to mention the obvious majority support for Stansbury. I just don't see it happening.

 

[MSUCostanza]

I look at it this way: If we are to believe that Stans is a below average or worse coach, then, based on his record and win % and the number of banners he has helped us hang in the Hump, we must say that he is a phenomenal recruiter and that we are loaded with talent to overcome his coaching. However, if you look at our history, although we have had some very good college players, you will find scant few of our former players on NBA rosters or McD's AA lists. What we've had are good players that have gotten better while here. I distinctly remember cringing when the freshman Timmy Bowers touched the ball. And at the end of his senior year, when we won that game in Tuscaloosa, there was no one I wanted more with the ball in his hand to clinch the SEC title than Timmy Bowers. Jarvis Varnado was an afterthought as a freshman. He's about to shatter every SEC block record there is as a senior. Poor coaches do not develop players. We've had our projects that didn't work out, but every school does.

On the flip side, if you consider our talent and his recruiting to be good or above average, but not great or elite, then you must accept that Stansbury is also an above average coach when you look at all that he has won. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Rick is a very good recruiter and a very good coach. He will never be the John Wooden of X's and O's or the Roy Williams of recruiting, but when you consider our resources, lack of tradition and money and all the other factors that go into it, you cannot convince me that Rick Stansbury isn't one hell of an asset to MSU, and those calling for his head after one loss in November are either purposely stirring up ****, stupid, or both.

How many times have we seen an understudy take over for a mentor and proceed to crash a program into the ground? It happens time and again. With us, however, Rick has taken what Richard Williams built from nothing and continued to grow it. You cannot argue otherwise.

 

[ninja dawg]

Well put sir....excellent post</p>

 

[el capitan]

that has dominated the West so consistently for so long and has even won a couple of SEC titles. But at some point people have to realize that ultimately the NCAA tournament is all that matters. MSU fans have never tasted sustained success like Stans has provided and because of this we have become content with our domination within the league. Winning in the SEC is hard to do and damn impressive but to truly be nationally prominent (where I think we could and should be) you have to win in the Big Dance. Bottom line. He hasn't even made it to a Sweet 16. Unacceptable. I'm not saying he should fired if he doesn't get it done this year, but if he can't put together some sort of run in the next couple of years with the young talent he has, he's gotta go.

 

[Coach34]

to fire a coach that never seems to finish in the top 25?</p>

In Stansbury's 12 seasons, how many times has he finished in the top 25?

How many times have we even been ranked period?

When looked at it from the standpoint, it takes on a totally different view</p>

 

[Todd4State]

to fire a coach that never seems to finish in the top 25?</p>

In Stansbury's 12 seasons, how many times has he finished in the top 25?

How many times have we even been ranked period?

When looked at it from the standpoint, it takes on a totally different view</p>

How many times has that happened at MSU in basketball period?

You may not like it, but Stansbury is the most successful basketball coach in MSU history in terms of overall wins and postseason appearances. Yes, Richard Williams had a Final Four and a Sweet 16, but what about the rest of the time? One of his SEC Championships was a year when UK was on probation. Then Babe McCarthy had a few SEC Championships in a totally different era of basketball.

All I know is that now with Stansbury, it's realistic to expect us to at least make the Big Dance, and making the NIT is a bad year. Even under Richard Williams, it wasn't that way aside from a couple of seasons with Eric Dampier. And it sure as hell wasn't that way under Boyd.

 

[seshomoru]

to fire a coach that never seems to finish in the top 25?</p>

In Stansbury's 12 seasons, how many times has he finished in the top 25?

How many times have we even been ranked period?

When looked at it from the standpoint, it takes on a totally different view</p>

When there is a year end tournament, who gives a **** about where you finish in the top 25? You can harp on his lack of advancement to the Sweet 16 all you want, and we know you will, but end of year rankings in basketball just have no value whatsoever.

Besides, when he makes the sweet 16, we'll be in the top 25. So it really doesn't take on a totally different view. It's just different words to more of same stuff you say over, and over, and over, and over.

 

[Center Z]

the SEC has dropped to a 6th rate conference

we are in a Super-Conference now.