Talking about basketball budgets

[whatever.sixpack]

You either have to choose:

If budget matters, then:
We are far outperforming ours since we consistently field better teams than our conference brethren that have larger budgets.

OR

If budget doesn't matter:
Then that gives all 347 teams in DI the chance to be just as good as MSU. If that's the case and we're competing against over 300 teams that can legitimately compete, then being a top 50 team (which we've been consistently the last 9 years, probably better than that on average) is all that more impressive since it puts us in the top 14% of teams in DI college basketball. Using this argument, everyone has a chance to be good, since you only have to have 2 or 3 good players and all...

 

[whatever.sixpack]

You either have to choose:

If budget matters, then:
We are far outperforming ours since we consistently field better teams than our conference brethren that have larger budgets.

OR

If budget doesn't matter:
Then that gives all 347 teams in DI the chance to be just as good as MSU. If that's the case and we're competing against over 300 teams that can legitimately compete, then being a top 50 team (which we've been consistently the last 9 years, probably better than that on average) is all that more impressive since it puts us in the top 14% of teams in DI college basketball. Using this argument, everyone has a chance to be good, since you only have to have 2 or 3 good players and all...

 

[whatever.sixpack]

You either have to choose:

If budget matters, then:
We are far outperforming ours since we consistently field better teams than our conference brethren that have larger budgets.

OR

If budget doesn't matter:
Then that gives all 347 teams in DI the chance to be just as good as MSU. If that's the case and we're competing against over 300 teams that can legitimately compete, then being a top 50 team (which we've been consistently the last 9 years, probably better than that on average) is all that more impressive since it puts us in the top 14% of teams in DI college basketball. Using this argument, everyone has a chance to be good, since you only have to have 2 or 3 good players and all...

 

[msudogsrule01]

nm

 

[Coach34]

our budget is around 80th and is on a steady climb... (putting us in the top 25% of college basketball)

2006- we weren't even a top 100 team
2007- we a 60-70 team
2008- top 35 team
2009- we dont make the NCAA without winning the SEC Tourney- making us 60-70 team
2010- we were a 70 team at best

 

[8dog]

We pay our coach 1 mill a year. Its not like we struggle to keep a head coach or assistants or to hire new ones. We've had the same coach and the same 2 top assts for over 10 years. We send our coaches all over recruiting and all they have to do is sign 2-4 guys a year.

To me, money is about hiring coaches and how much recruiting you can do. Maybe someone has a different take and I think we are doing just fine.

 

[whatever.sixpack]

Being the first or second team left out of a 65 team field, when there are 4-10 automatic bids that we are better than makes us a little better than top 70.

But again, that just shows your bias. Amazing how DS continues to allow someone to post when every point she makes is a stretch of the truth to slander MSU
Why you such a ***** DS?

 

[patdog]

nm</p>

 

[Coach34]

in your mind- you think you are correct..but you really dont have any facts to back that up

with an RPI around 55 and a SOS of 74, we just arent a top basketball team

 

[whatever.sixpack]

We pay our coach 1 mill a year. Its not like we struggle to keep a head coach or assistants or to hire new ones. We've had the same coach and the same 2 top assts for over 10 years. We send our coaches all over recruiting and all they have to do is sign 2-4 guys a year.

To me, money is about hiring coaches and how much recruiting you can do. Maybe someone has a different take and I think we are doing just fine.

That's my point (or one of them anyway). If budget doesn't matter b/c you only have to get 2-4 players, then anyone has the chance to be just as good as us (evidenced by the numerous different teams that make the 2nd rd of the tourney each yr from tiny conferences like Northern Iowa, St Mary's, Old Dominion, Ohio, Murray St, etc...)
So that makes us being a 2nd rd team 4 times in 7 years at one point pretty impressive (not to mention that not making it further once or twice was a pretty big upset).
Not looking at the math, I think it's safe to assume our average RPI the last 9 years is around 40-45, putting us in the top 12%.

Comparatively speaking, we've been around the 60th percentile of football with a budget in the top 25%, and everyone knows we've far underperformed in baseball w/ the facilities and tradition we have

 

[Coach34]

than it should be with the schedule being played....when you look at the losses we have had OOC and the RPI of those teams in the last 5 years, its really hard to say we any better than 60-70 range

should I list those for you and the RPI of those teams?

 

[patdog]

If anything, strength of schedule is already too much of a factor in RPI, and in our case dragged our RPI down lower than it should have been.

 

[whatever.sixpack]

You just posted the facts you idiot, our RPI was 55, not "outside the top 70"

Just about every analyst out there said we either were the first team out or were shafted to not be in, that pretty much throws every "fact" you've thrown out there out the window. Don't you think the bracketologists would take SOS into account? Doesn't the RPI also take it into account?
Does it take into account that we had UK beaten twice? Probably not

 

[markymark.sixpack]

the coach34 measuring stick of how good a team is is more reliable than the measuring sticks used by the NCAA and national media? Oh, now i get it. thanks for clearing that up.

and no, nobody wants you to list any of your cherry picked statistics anymore. we've all seen them, and we still disagree with you.

why don't you just admit that we've been pretty damn good under stansbury (in respect to our overall history), but you still think we can be better under someone else? No one is going to believe that we've sucked under stansbury b/c it just isn't true. Have his teams underperformed? Some probably have. Have they sucked? No, not one of them. Move on.

 

[goldeneye]

Your level of opponent is already taken into consideration in the RPI so the fact that they loss to a lower level team is the reason the RPI is that low in the first place. So saying that they are top 70 at best is double penalizing them. The RPI is usually the best indicator of rank because the level of your oppt is calculated in it. Its kind of like the BCS ranking in football. If their RPI is 55 then they are pretty much a Top 55, 60 at best team. &0 is a huge stretch

 

[8dog]

you can also say that budget means we aren't at the disadvantage we normally find ourselves in football; therefore, we should be more nationally competitive.
My view is that budget is no crutch in basketball for us. We've kept coaches and we've brought in good players b/c of that.

And Im talking about our budget. To act like "everyone is equal" in a 317 team division is ridiculous. Jackson State does not have an equal chance to win that we do. Just like we don't have an equal chance to win as UNC b/c of their facilities and tradition. But the budget doesn't present us with the issues we have in football. Mix in the fact we play in a high profile conference with great exposure and we have a greater chance to be nationally competitive.

 

[Coach34]

when you are losing to the OOC teams we are losing to, you just arent a top team. Our record vs the top 50 is awful Stansbury's entire tenure, and against the top 25 its embarrassing

 

[whatever.sixpack]

So by using "your math and your formula" we are outside the top 70?

You can convince your sheep of a lot of things on this board, but convincing them that the RPI formula has us out of place by over 15 spots because your math proves otherwise is the single most ridiculous and biased thing you'll read on this board. You can't just decide based on a whim and on your judgment that we're worse than our RPI b/c of who we've lost to, b/c the RPI takes everything into account

Yep, you heard it here. The RPI didn't take into account the bad teams we lost to and we should've been 16-25 spots lower, damn them for not penalizing us and counting our losses to bad teams! Why did they leave those out!?!

 

[patdog]

EVERY major bracket projection, college basketball expert and commentator said that we were one of the first four teams out of the tournament this year, which would mean that we were actually closer to the #45-#50 team than the #55 team.

 

[whatever.sixpack]

Exactly Pat, we are posting FACTS, c34 is posting his OPINION of how good a team we were.

I think we all know his opinion is biased and it's amazing that DS lets him to continue to stretch the truth to degrade the school we are supposed to support w/ his every post. Just to think that ppl in the athletic dept are being influenced by his bs is amazing. Just b/c someone fills up the boards and posts 200 times a day doesn't mean they speak for the majority

 

[Agentdog]

....are location and retention of players. Location being the most important. With a few exceptions (being the national recognized programs such as UK and Kansas), it isn't a coincidence that the better programs are located near metropolitan areas. Only reason WVU, a rural university, was successful was because of Huggins and recruiting the NYC area. When is State going to get a good.....not a 5'10" spaz, head case......GOOD....player from a large metro area on the east coast?

Just like with everything else, our problem in basketball is location. 1. Very difficult to recruit kids from large areas to Starkville. Basketball players don't seem to mind playing at the smaller schools near home if they don't get the scholarship to the large university. That is why Villanova, Georgetown, Butler, and etc. have good basketball programs.

2. The state of MS has a small population to find and recruit 6'4" and better athletes. Also, where does basketball rank in popularity in MS...the south in general? I would say 3rd behind football and baseball. So, your best athletes are playing other sports.

So, until Stans gets lucky and lands a Jamont or Bost from OOS and also has a Outlaw and/or Bender from MS in the same class......don't expect much more than what has been accomplished.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

If someone in our athletic dept is being influenced by c34's posts on a message board, that person needs to be fired. And quickly.

 

[dawgstudent]

[No message]

 

[whatever.sixpack]

I agree with Agent, and this is a reasonable, rational post. Realistically, you do only have to have a few players. And being in the North/Northeast w/ so many big cities, it makes it where there are plenty of players to go around... giving all the small schools that are close to huge cities an equal opportunity to be just as good or better than us b/c of population alone. Our population hurts us and a New York or Philadelphia player would probably choose George Washington, Butler, or St Johns over us b/c of proximity.

By the way, Pomeroy's RPI for us the last 3 years was 33, 61, and 44, for an average of 46. That's a stat that I have to "back up my claim." Most of us actually can find stats that support us, unlike c34 who just gives his opinion on how the RPI is wrong

 

[fishwater99]

2. The state of MS has a small population to find and recruit 6'4" and better athletes. Also, where does basketball rank in popularity in MS...the south in general? I would say 3rd behind football and baseball. So, your best athletes are playing other sports.

So, until Stans gets lucky and lands a Jamont or Bost from OOS and also has a Outlaw and/or Bender from MS in the same class......don't expect much more than what has been accomplished.

Let's see how many stay in state and who Stans can buy with some Bryan HotDogs...

 

[pDigital32Dawg]

but I thought he had a never ending database of statistical facts about all things college basketball. So you sir are a liar. C34 is never wrong.

 

[hatfieldms]

....on a message board? Are you really that damn stupid?

 

[markymark.sixpack]

but he doesn't</p>

 

[AdamDawgDude]

Agentdog]....are location and retention of players. Location being the most important. With a few exceptions (being the national recognized programs such as UK and Kansas), it isn't a coincidence that the better programs are located near metropolitan areas. Only reason WVU, a rural university, was successful was because of Huggins and recruiting the NYC area. When is State going to get a good.....not a 5'10" spaz, head case......GOOD....player from a large metro area on the east coast?

Just like with everything else, our problem in basketball is location. 1. Very difficult to recruit kids from large areas to Starkville. Basketball players don't seem to mind playing at the smaller schools near home if they don't get the scholarship to the large university. That is why Villanova, Georgetown, Butler, and etc. have good basketball programs.

2. The state of MS has a small population to find and recruit 6'4" and better athletes. Also, where does basketball rank in popularity in MS...the south in general? I would say 3rd behind football and baseball. So, your best athletes are playing other sports.

So, until Stans gets lucky and lands a Jamont or Bost from OOS and also has a Outlaw and/or Bender from MS in the same class......don't expect much more than what has been accomplished.

We should just set up shop at Oak Hill Academy. Mouth of Wilson, VA makes Starkville look like Paris. You basically have to take a winding mountain road for about 2 hours to get there. It's a pretty area, but I certainly wouldn't want to live there unless I were in the witness protection program or something.

 

[Roy Munson.sixpack]

all the damn excuses...Plain and Simple, we SUCK when it counts. Make all the excuses you want, but we flat out suck when we need itand stans record against good competition is terrible, PERIOD.

Sheeesh, why do we argue this **** every single day. Any rational mind can admit this....

 

[mstateglfr]

<span class="post-title">there is no bias- I am correct...</span>in your mind- you think you are correct..but you really dont have any facts to back that up

with an RPI around 55 and a SOS of 74, we just arent a top basketball team

fact-we were one of the last few teams out according to damn near everyone that comments on college basketball for a living.
fact- we were a #1 seed in the NIT
fact- the NCAAT doesnt take thebest 65 teams, its more like the best 50ish and a bunch of auto bids.

Sosince we were one of thefirst teams left out and we were a top seed in theNIT, we were viewed as WAY higher than 'top 70 at best'.
It is hardly a stretch, given our close miss of theNCAAT combined with our top seeding in the NIT to say we were in the top55 in the country.

Thiswould be combining RPI, SOS, and PERCEPTION.
You simply cant honestly argue that everywhere you looked after selection Sunday, MSU was discussed as one of the first out. We were much higher than 70.

All this means jack in the end, except that since you are so glaringly wrong and apparently dont know what the word'fact' means.

 

[fishwater99]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="COLOR: black">Budgets matter, but not really that much in CBB. It all comes down to the AAU circuit when it comes to recruitingand how many "Bryan Hot Dogs" are given to those coaches and the players "handlers". Do you think that money comes from a schools basketball budget? No it doesn't.

Stop making excues for our coach sucking it up the last few years.
</span> </p>

</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="COLOR: black">The problem this year is that Stans had no "go to guy" to run his offense around. In the past we had Jamont, Roberts, </span></p>

 

[paindonthurt_]

<span class="post-title"></span>

 

[whatever.sixpack]

I think the athletic department is influenced by the pulse of the fanbase and what they deem the general consensus of how the fans feel about the program and the coaches. Part of how they measure that is by reading message boards, they wouldn't have someone hired to constantly monitor them if they didn't care what was said.

I also think C34 influences and sways how a lot of people feel on this board, and when 4 or 5 people account for the majority of the posts on a subject and post 10 times more than everyone else on here, it makes it seem like the general consensus of the board. When only the negative posters are posting over and over, I think it makes it seem as though their opinion is the one that speaks for the entire board and in essence, the fanbase

 

[paindonthurt_]

<span class="post-title"></span>Of course budgets matter, BUT when you have the talent on your team, the
budget doesn't have jack **** to do with it.

Plain and simple
the last 3 years we have been more talented than our records indicated.
That by definition is underachievement. We underachieved.

 

[paindonthurt_]

I think you post is a little inaccurate. They may follow message boards. Maybe. But SixPackSpeak is not representative of the fan base. Its not any more representative of the fan base than BDJ, Genespage, or any other MSU board.

Most likely, the majority view of all message boards differ a little and if you ranked them 1 being one opinion (say fire stans) and 10 being another opinion (say keep stans no matter what), they'd all probably vary throughout 1 to 10.

 

[dawgstudent]

if any decision is influenced by a message board, we have much bigger problems than Stansbury in our athletic department.

 

[whatever.sixpack]

Yes, there is someone or a group of people that watch the message boards constantly from within the athletic department, I think that's obvious.

Also, I think there are only 3 message boards and last I heard this was the largest, and knowing these negative posters and the time they obviously have on their hands they probably post on all 3. If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.

I don't think the boards represent what the athletic department would define entirely as the pulse of the fanbase, but it may be a large part of it. If you were putting a percentage on it of how much influence they take from the boards vs the small group of high ranking Bulldog Club members that they talk to regularly, I'd say they weigh those opinions 50/50. Byrne was definitely the type to listen to the fanbase and try to serve the interests of the fanbase. What do you think he used as a gauge of how MSU fans felt?

The negative opinions always speak the loudest though, b/c we hear those incessantly while the neutral fans or generally happy fans don't express their opinions as much

 

[Coach34]

but I thought he had a never ending database of statistical facts about all things college basketball. So you sir are a liar. C34 is never wrong.

their numbers are more in line with the NCAA numbers from what I understand

 

[hatfieldms]

To even think one person on a message board could somehow influence the decisions an athletic department makes is nothing short of idiotic