Someone please explain to me C34's hatred of Stans.

[anon1751035439]

Truth be told, I actually pull for your basketball team. It seems to me that Stans consistently delivers a very competitive team. At the end of the year you will be fighting for the SEC West crown. Hopefully we will be there with you.

But my question is, when and why did C34 turn on Stansbury? Does anyone know?

 

[anon1751035439]

Truth be told, I actually pull for your basketball team. It seems to me that Stans consistently delivers a very competitive team. At the end of the year you will be fighting for the SEC West crown. Hopefully we will be there with you.

But my question is, when and why did C34 turn on Stansbury? Does anyone know?

 

[Rabid]

Corch doesn't hate Stans.

Have you ever seen a dog on a chain? Have you ever seen a cruel kid yank the dog's chain just to see what the dog will do? Well, Corch is that kid. He likes jerking chains and the dogs don't know how to stop barking.

 

[VirgilCain]

I was not able to attend the game, but I can tell you that I have been superbly disappointed in his coaching over the years. I can't tell you how many times after a timeout that i have said to the person next to me, "that's what we drew up during the time out???" (referring to plays out of a timeout that we run an isolation play that results in a desperation 3-point shot).

I'm still undecided as to whether a coaching change needs to be made or not. Basketball is the only major sport that can be won strictly on talent without much coaching. Of course the top teams in the nation have both coaching and talent, but you can be a top twenty-five team with just strictly talent. I think this is where Stansbury fits in as a coach. The decision falls on whether we are happy with being a top 25, or if we want to take the chance on a good coach (X's & O's) to take us farther (with the possibility of the new coach sucking *** at both recruiting and/or X's and O's)

Like I said, I didn't see any of the game but let me guess... we played to the game to the strength of Rider, which called for a 4 guard line up. Why cant we get teams to play to our strength, which is playing a bigger line up?

 

[el capitan]

but can't win when it matters come NCAA Tourney time. Although C34 probably has a bunch of ludicrous reasons that he alone alleges, Stans's inability to get it done in the Big Dance is the primary reason your common, sensible fan would disapprove of him. His in-game coaching and game preparation have also been questionable at times (that's an understatement). Despite that, he's produced 20 win season after 20 win season and won multiple SEC championships. It's hard to disapprove of those results. It is, however, not hard to disapprove of the repeated 1-and-outs in the NCAA Tourney. It's getting old, and I have to believe many fans' out there patience is wearing thin. I know mine is. I happen to agree with C34 that we could probably get a better coach. It's just not easy to let go of someone that for the past decade has repeatedly put out the best product that Mississippi State athletics has to offer. We're so used to mediocrity at MSU that it has not only become acceptable, but a way of life. Stans has taken MSU basketball to a new level, one that we State fans have not seen in any sport since Ron Polk was in his prime. He has managed to not only consistently field a highly competitive team, but he has pretty much dominated the SEC West the entire 21st century. As glorious as all this sounds, we could do better. The majority of our fans are just so used to mediocrity, they taste this bit of success that Stans has provided and feel like it's good enough. Well it's not. There is absolutely no excuse for him not having taken a team to the Sweet 16. His excellent recruiting makes it even that much more inexcusable. I'm not to the point where I think we should fire Stansbury, but if he doesn't manage some sort of success in the Big Dance sometime soon it won't be long before I'm agreeing with Coach. Well, that might be an exaggeration. Let the bashing ensue...</p>

 

[Beretta.sixpack]

bravo....that is how most of us educated fans feel who dont accept a plateau

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I can't tell that Stans has gotten much better. It's really hard to see things that he's doing now that he wasn't doing in, say, 2002. He got better after his first few years as HC, but he hasn't done what it takes to become an elite coach. We have to face that he will never get us to the final four or have us going to the sweet 16 every other year. We will still have a good regular season team that wins 20 games and a SECW or SECT title every few years, but that's all we will ever get to based on how Stans has done. It's a matter of what we want. I think most of the "keep Stans" and "fire Stans" posters are struggling with this decision. It would be an "all-in" move. If we fire him and end up with a bad coach, it's back to the wilderness. If we fire him and end up with someone even just a little better, we could be tourney regulars. Do we think Byrne could get us a top-notch coach?

 

[Coach34]

I was privy to some info about him when he first started as head coach. Nothing flattering was said of him to say the least of his first 2-3 years and LT nearly canned him.

I think he is an average at best floor coach and a decent recruiter.

He makes us a solid program but its obvious we will never win big under him. My sig tells you all you need to know about him. He is 17-44 against top 25 rated teams. 17-44- what does that tell you? He cant win big games but has made a career at State on beating nobodys- and still loses to them from time to time as we saw last night

 

[Coach34]

why do you think so highly of a coach that is 51-82 against top 50 rated teams for his career?

 

[whatever.sixpack]

I don't think you guys understand mediocrity. There are over 300 DI basketball programs, and we consistently are a part of the top 40, top 25 normally. We have consistently been better on a year in, year out basis than everyone in our conference outside of Florida and Kentucky, and have been better than everyone in the West.
If we had been the 3rd best team consistently in the SEC over the last 10 years in football and the best team in our division, people would think we have the best coach out there that we could get.
I think it's unfair to say that "we can't" get to another level. If you have one bad game in the tourney it shouldn't overshadow all of the positive. We were very, very unlucky the years we lost to Duke, Xavier, and Butler, those could've easily been wins but the ball didn't bounce our way. You can't judge a program based on those three near misses. I think the teams we had that lost to Butler and Xavier are 2 of the top 3 teams we've ever had since the McCarthy days

 

[Coach34]

I don't think you guys understand mediocrity. There are over 300 DI basketball programs, and we consistently are a part of the top 40, top 25 normally. We have consistently been better on a year in, year out basis than everyone in our conference outside of Florida and Kentucky, and have been better than everyone in the West.
If we had been the 3rd best team consistently in the SEC over the last 10 years in football and the best team in our division, people would think we have the best coach out there that we could get.
I think it's unfair to say that "we can't" get to another level. If you have one bad game in the tourney it shouldn't overshadow all of the positive. We were very, very unlucky the years we lost to Duke, Xavier, and Butler, those could've easily been wins but the ball didn't bounce our way. You can't judge a program based on those three near misses. I think the teams we had that lost to Butler and Xavier are 2 of the top 3 teams we've ever had since the McCarthy days

being 17-44 in games vs the top 25 and 51-82 vs teams in the top 50 tell me that we arent "consistently part of the top 40"

 

[whatever.sixpack]

We are the third best team in our conference over the last 10 years. We've gotten to the tourney several times and the second round four times. So in those 4-5 years we were one of the last 32 teams left. And out of the 16 teams that lost in those 4 years, there are 2-3 that you can certainly say we were one of the best, if not the best left out of the teams that got beat in the second round.
If we had that success in football, we would've erected multiple statues of the guy. Why do we think we're entitled to have a consistent top 15 basketball team that determines its success by a Sweet 16 appearance every 5 years? How many other SEC programs are getting those results?

 

[Stormrider81]

Obviously, I don't believe you.

 

[Coach34]

in which the SEC is a 5th rate conference- why else do you think Stansbury has been successful? We are one of what 3 teams that havent made a Sweet 16 in the last 10 years in the SEC? Or is it two?</p>

Stansbury cant win big games. Fact. 51-82 vs the Top 50- thats not a winning coach no matter how you slice it. It also shows that with that record, he isnt playing many highly-rated SEC teams to be 3rd in the conference now does it?</p>

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

..that's the bottom line.

Everybody understands if Stansbury suddenly accomplishes all the crap he is constantly demanding Stansbury should accomplish, he will immediately begin to bash Stansbury for not winning a NC.

And if Stansbury is fired, he will instantly develop a homoerotic crush on the new coach, justifying for years all the 17 ups the new coach will make along the way.

 

[markymark.sixpack]

responsible for 2 of our 3 SECT championships (on the staff for the 3rd), 1 of our 2 SEC season championships since the 60s, and 6 of our 10 NCAAT appearances (on the staff for 2 others - including the final 4 run). our program is not tradition rich. we are not duke, UNC, or Kentucky. Get over it. Until the mid-90s, we had been pretty bad for 30 years. Stansbury is not the greatest coach in the country, but he's done a damn good job with what he's got. we're not going to get blue chip recruits every year, so we're going to the sweet 16 most years. yes, we should have been a couple of times under rick...but we didn't. move on, get a life, get over it. The run we've had with Stans is still one of or THE best in school history. it's hard not to expect more, but put it in perspective. we are NOT going to find somebody better for the job who would stay forever.

i know you can't use logic or reason, so none of this will mean anything to you....but we all know that you know it's true. so keep up your whiny little ***** routine, you stupid little girl.

 

[Coach34]

..that's the bottom line.

Everybody understands if Stansbury suddenly accomplishes all the crap he is constantly demanding Stansbury should accomplish, he will immediately begin to bash Stansbury for not winning a NC.

And if Stansbury is fired, he will instantly develop a homoerotic crush on the new coach, justifying for years all the 17 ups the new coach will make along the way.

I stated on this board 5 years ago, and I know many on here remember, that Stansbury would never make a Sweet 16. He has yet to do that. So why are you saying I would say something else if he by some miracle accomplished it? He has yet to accomplish something I've known he will never do. There is no need to raise the bar on someone that cant make it to where it is now. I wont ever have to raise the bar for Stansbury- it's too high now

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

nm

 

[markymark.sixpack]

if we had a football coach with the success Stans has had, fired-C34 would run everybody over on his way to lick the guy's nutsack. he would cream in his pants every time somebody said his name.

 

[Coach34]

pretty much makes you the 2nd biggest idiot on the board next to him. Congrats on your new title

 

[whatever.sixpack]

in which the SEC is a 5th rate conference- why else do you think Stansbury has been successful? We are one of what 3 teams that havent made a Sweet 16 in the last 10 years in the SEC? Or is it two?</p>

Stansbury cant win big games. Fact. 51-82 vs the Top 50- thats not a winning coach no matter how you slice it. It also shows that with that record, he isnt playing many highly-rated SEC teams to be 3rd in the conference now does it?</p>

Would you trade the success we've had on a consistent basis, year in, year out for one Sweet 16 appearance in 10 years? I know I wouldn't. A bad tournament doesn't define your program, it's what you do year in, year out, and just b/c we had some unlucky breaks in tourney games, doesn't mean Stans can't get us there. There is no other program in the SEC outside of UF and UK that I would trade results w/ since Stans has been here.
And yeah, the SEC has been weak the last 1-2 years, but every year before that has been one of the top 3 consistently so don't give me the conference argument, this conference has traditionally been very good until recently.

 

[ohyehwut]

is what we are defending. You either have your players ready or you don't. Rider at home.. are you serious!

And as for this quote about Wendell... nothing pisses me off more than a coach that uses this analogy.

"This is not a game to experiment in. He's thrown into a war."

REALLY!! Were there some snipers in the Hump??? Is there a chance he might not make it back to the bench alive? Way to $@#%@ disrespect every veteran past and present by reducing what we do to a game! I'd be glad to introduce Stans to a war and see if he ever says that again.

 

[markymark.sixpack]

is what we are defending. You either have your players ready or you don't. Rider at home.. are you serious!

And as for this quote about Wendell... nothing pisses me off more than a coach that uses this analogy.

"This is not a game to experiment in. He's thrown into a war."

REALLY!! Were there some snipers in the Hump??? Is there a chance he might not make it back to the bench alive? Way to $@#%@ disrespect every veteran past and present by reducing what we do to a game! I'd be glad to introduce Stans to a war and see if he ever says that again.

every coach uses that analogy. while i appreciate all who serve, this is a bit of a reach...

 

[ohyehwut]

every coach uses that analogy. while i appreciate all who serve, this is a bit of a reach...

I just don't feel it's comparable. I wouldn't expect coaches or anyone else to understand... so I guess it is a bit of a reach.

 

[TR.sixpack]

He would whine and complain about not being in a BCS bowl or about not winning the SEC Championship game or how MSU fans are stupid for being happy to go to Atlanta or Dallas or Tampa for bowl season every year.

 

[el capitan]

<div> Main Entry: 1war </div> <div> Pronunciation: <span class="pr">\<span class="unicode">?</span>w<span class="unicode">o?</span>r\</span> </div> <div> Function: noun </div> <div> Usage: often attributive </div> <div> Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse </div> <div> Date: 12th century </div> <p class="d"><em class="sn">1 a[/i] <em class="su">(1)[/i] : a state of usually open <span id="IL_AD4" class="IL_AD"><font color="#009900">and</font></span> declared <span id="IL_AD1" class="IL_AD"><font color="#009900">armed</font></span> hostile <span id="IL_AD2" class="IL_AD"><font color="#009900">conflict</font></span> between states or nations <em class="su">(2)[/i] : a period of such armed conflict <em class="su">(3)[/i] : state of war b : the art or science of warfare <em class="sn">c[/i] <em class="su">(1)[/i] obsolete : weapons and equipment <span id="IL_AD3" class="IL_AD"><font color="#009900">for</font></span> war <em class="su">(2)[/i] archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <span class="vi"><a class war></span> <span class="vi"><a war against disease></span> c : variance, odds 3</p> <p class="r">- war·less <span class="pr">\-l?s\</span> adjective

I don't think they mean it in the context you're thinking about...</p>