Stansbury should be fired this year if...
- Thread starter DowntownDawg
- Start date
That we will soon see how many aliases salesman34 and fishwater are willing to create. This is like their dream poll, and we have only lost one game.
He's not going to add an "I'm retarded, don't know ****, am a pathological liar, have enough psychological problems that should have me taken off the streets, and and think Stansbury should be fired regardless" option, so go ahead and vote for option 1.
... almost 50% don't give a sh*t whether Stansbury wins ANYTHING ...</p>
Seems someone directly opposite of C34 (Brian, Hatfield, etc) are running up the numbers ...</p>
</p>
</p>
Seems someone directly opposite of C34 (Brian, Hatfield, etc) are running up the numbers ...</p>
</p>
</p>
It's that Stans has earned somewhat of a pass. Last time I checked a ticket at the Hump was hard to get.
Otherwise Burn baby Burn, stupid or not.
Otherwise Burn baby Burn, stupid or not.
he should be fired. But we are never going to win big as long as he is here. And thats fine with most of you seemingly. Winning the weak half of a 5th rate conference is not winning big. Many here got on Polk for just making the Tourney and SEC baseball is much tougher than SEC basketball. There are probably twice as many Super regional SEC teams as there are Sweet 16's in the last 10 years. Just doesnt make sense.
Running up the numbers? I voted once. I dont have the time for making up alias' nor do I care enough to shift this poll by doing so. All this shows ios that most people are smart enough to realize that he isnt getting fired this year. What did you vote?Berserker said:
... my standards are much higher than yours. Complacency is the word for you, Brian, George ...
Btw, tix are difficult to get because the expectations are high ... whether they will remain so this year remains to be seen ...
Btw, tix are difficult to get because the expectations are high ... whether they will remain so this year remains to be seen ...
17'n douche.
Consistency would be the word you were looking for actually. As in, consistently in the top 3rd of our Conference and consistently having a chance to make the tourney pretty much every year. We should definitely fire the most succesful coach on our campus though if he doesn't make it to the Sweet 16 this year. That actually makes some sense. I just need to raise my standards. Oh. Ok. I think I'm finally catching on.
Consistency would be the word you were looking for actually. As in, consistently in the top 3rd of our Conference and consistently having a chance to make the tourney pretty much every year. We should definitely fire the most succesful coach on our campus though if he doesn't make it to the Sweet 16 this year. That actually makes some sense. I just need to raise my standards. Oh. Ok. I think I'm finally catching on.
High expectations: Make at least the sweet 16 after 12 years. Is that so hard to understand or grasp? After all, has MSU done it before?
Or maybe you will be happy that Stansbury does a crash and burn in the SEC and/or the first/second round game.
Btw, George didn't you blow a top when Stansbury lost to a UGa team that played TWICE in the same day of the 2007 SEC finals? I would have thought you were gonna fire Stansbury!</p>
Or maybe you will be happy that Stansbury does a crash and burn in the SEC and/or the first/second round game.
Btw, George didn't you blow a top when Stansbury lost to a UGa team that played TWICE in the same day of the 2007 SEC finals? I would have thought you were gonna fire Stansbury!</p>
that you are one of those people who waves their e-penis around and says **** on message boards that they would probably never say in real life but that doesn't excuse stupidity. Stansbury is a good coach. Is he the best coach in the history of basketball? No. Is he the best coach in the history of Mississippi State? Yes. This is the one damn sport where we are sitting at, or near, the top of the SEC every season and we have to put up with douchebags like you and Coach34 the entire time crowing over every loss. #%%*@+% idiots.Berserker said:
AssEndDawg said:
being near the top of a 5th rate conference gets you an 8 seed in the NCAA's...or winning the conference tourney gets you a 13 seed in Washington...or winning the West may not even get you in the Tourney...aGAIN- being 51-82 vs top 50 rated teams, means he isnt playing many in the SEC
The SEC had two teams in the final four. One was Florida, the other was LSU coached by the legendary, the timeless, John Brady. Now there is no way you can say the SEC is down when it has a coach like Brady, not to mention Gottfried was still at Bama. I mean seriously, while these two guys were coaching, I don't know how you can make any argument other than that the SEC West was the strongest group of teams in all of college basketball for those years.
MedDawg said:
but based on actual results, not ratings, the SEC is 5th. The SEC is 5th in Sweet 16's and 5th in Final Fours the last 10 years...that means that its teams are not as strong as the other top conferences...
And just what happened to that badass SEC champion with its 2nd toughest RPI championship in the NCAA's that season?
best over a 10 yr period. Is this your own analysis or do you have a list of final RPIs to back it up?
5th in sweet 16s and final fours doesn't necessarily equate to 5th overall. There is likely a correlation, but I want to see a final RPI listing of the conferences.
5th in sweet 16s and final fours doesn't necessarily equate to 5th overall. There is likely a correlation, but I want to see a final RPI listing of the conferences.
Part (not all) of Stans' NCAA problems have been matchups against hot teams or having to play in tough locales:
In 2002, #6 seed Texas beat #3 MSU (in DALLAS) then lost to #2 seed Oregon by 2 in the Sweet Sixteen. No way should State have had to play Texas in Dallas.
In 2003, #12 Butler beat #5 MSU on a last second shot then beat #4 Louisville to make the Sweet Sixteen. Just an unlucky draw for State as Butler was playing much better than a #12 seed.
In 2004, #7 Xavier beat #2 MSU then #3 Texas to make the Sweet Sixteen and then only lost to #1 Duke by 3. Xavier had won something like 13 straight before playing MSU. Another unlucky draw for State.
In 2005, #8 MSU beat #9 Stanford then lost to #1 Duke in a game that was within a couple points with less than 2 minutes left.
In 2008, #8 MSU beat #9 Oregon then lost to #1 seed Memphis on a last second shot. Memphis then beat every other team by 15 points or more until the championship game.
In 2009, #13 MSU lost to #4 Washington in Portland, Oregon 4 days after winning the SEC tourney in Tampa, Florida. This was State's 5th game in 8 days. Just outmanned by UW.
>>>In 2008 and 2009, State had a worse seed because of losses to bad/mediocre non-conference teams early in the schedule, causing MSU to play better teams earlier in the tournament. Some of that can be attributed to the unusual player turnover causing MSU to "start over" every year. THIS year we are not starting over, so we should not be losing to any more teams like Rider.
In 2002, #6 seed Texas beat #3 MSU (in DALLAS) then lost to #2 seed Oregon by 2 in the Sweet Sixteen. No way should State have had to play Texas in Dallas.
In 2003, #12 Butler beat #5 MSU on a last second shot then beat #4 Louisville to make the Sweet Sixteen. Just an unlucky draw for State as Butler was playing much better than a #12 seed.
In 2004, #7 Xavier beat #2 MSU then #3 Texas to make the Sweet Sixteen and then only lost to #1 Duke by 3. Xavier had won something like 13 straight before playing MSU. Another unlucky draw for State.
In 2005, #8 MSU beat #9 Stanford then lost to #1 Duke in a game that was within a couple points with less than 2 minutes left.
In 2008, #8 MSU beat #9 Oregon then lost to #1 seed Memphis on a last second shot. Memphis then beat every other team by 15 points or more until the championship game.
In 2009, #13 MSU lost to #4 Washington in Portland, Oregon 4 days after winning the SEC tourney in Tampa, Florida. This was State's 5th game in 8 days. Just outmanned by UW.
>>>In 2008 and 2009, State had a worse seed because of losses to bad/mediocre non-conference teams early in the schedule, causing MSU to play better teams earlier in the tournament. Some of that can be attributed to the unusual player turnover causing MSU to "start over" every year. THIS year we are not starting over, so we should not be losing to any more teams like Rider.
2002 - I will give you that. That texas game was ******** scheduling by the NCAA.
2003 - should not have lost to Butler.
2004 - it is what it is. We just got spanked that day.
2005 - never should have been an 8 seed. We were a lot better team than our record was. Winsome getting hurt somewhat hurt us.
2008 - never should lose those early non conference games and we would not have had to play Memphis in the 2nd round
2009 - almost as same as 2008. Don't lose those early non-conference games.
2003 - should not have lost to Butler.
2004 - it is what it is. We just got spanked that day.
2005 - never should have been an 8 seed. We were a lot better team than our record was. Winsome getting hurt somewhat hurt us.
2008 - never should lose those early non conference games and we would not have had to play Memphis in the 2nd round
2009 - almost as same as 2008. Don't lose those early non-conference games.
<span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Tahoma;">IT'S DAMN NEAR MSU76ISH IN ITS CRY FOR ATTENTION.</span>
R
Rabid
Guest
emoticons simply represent facial expressions. They are common usage throughout the 'net.
Since most communication is non-verbal (which includes facial expressions), isn't your distaste of emoticons a little ... odd? Or hypocritical? Surely, you don't go through your day expressionless. I'm quite sure you smile, frown and laugh like the rest of us. Why should this board be any different?
Non-Verbal Communication
Every week on this board you see people posting "you didn't understand my sarcasm" or "my sarcasm meter must be off". Something of that nature. Mostly, it's because the person trying to be sarcastic isn't funny. However, if you think about face-to-face communication, sarcasm is usually accompanied by ... a smile. That's how we know you're being sarcastic.
There is nothing "bad" about emoticons. They are merely an attempt to aid communication in a faceless world known as the internet. That's all.
Since most communication is non-verbal (which includes facial expressions), isn't your distaste of emoticons a little ... odd? Or hypocritical? Surely, you don't go through your day expressionless. I'm quite sure you smile, frown and laugh like the rest of us. Why should this board be any different?
Non-Verbal Communication
Every week on this board you see people posting "you didn't understand my sarcasm" or "my sarcasm meter must be off". Something of that nature. Mostly, it's because the person trying to be sarcastic isn't funny. However, if you think about face-to-face communication, sarcasm is usually accompanied by ... a smile. That's how we know you're being sarcastic.
There is nothing "bad" about emoticons. They are merely an attempt to aid communication in a faceless world known as the internet. That's all.
It's gay. And I would rather not get people to read my sarcasm than to put dumb **** like this up -------> =0 =) 8) ;-)