Stansbury lies on that thin line that just doesn't allow him to be neatly categorizedin anyway. He's been succesful enough that any talk of firing him makes one look foolish. He's also been just unsuccesful enough in the tourney to be considered "not good enough" to those to whom the tourney means everything. And until the time comes that he either stops winning consistently and getting in the tourney at a decent rate OR he steps up and makes a run past the first round, he's going to continue being on that thin line. And when you are on that line, one can make valid and meaningful arguments in either direction.
I mean, Coach34 does have a point in that you would be hard pressed to find another coach at a "major" school that has been there as long as Stans without a Sweet 16. But then again, you'd be hard pressed to find a coach that has his same resume that either hasn't made that 16-run or was fired for not winning enough. There just aren't many comparable situations.
So, there you have it. It's just not cut and dry. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why the few people that seem to never give up on the "how much Stans sucks" threads are so irritating. While your argument may have *some* merit, it's also easily refuted with other valid arguments. It's pointless. And until Stans does something, one way or the other, to get off that thin line, the debate will continue. Ad nauseum.
I mean, Coach34 does have a point in that you would be hard pressed to find another coach at a "major" school that has been there as long as Stans without a Sweet 16. But then again, you'd be hard pressed to find a coach that has his same resume that either hasn't made that 16-run or was fired for not winning enough. There just aren't many comparable situations.
So, there you have it. It's just not cut and dry. Which is, of course, one of the reasons why the few people that seem to never give up on the "how much Stans sucks" threads are so irritating. While your argument may have *some* merit, it's also easily refuted with other valid arguments. It's pointless. And until Stans does something, one way or the other, to get off that thin line, the debate will continue. Ad nauseum.
