Why the <Rule 17> would you think that? There are 3 douchebags on this board who actively trash Stans. There are a few more who believe we've underachieved recently but don't want him gone, and the rest think he's doing a pretty good job (but were disappointed in this season's results).If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.
Roy Munson said: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....
The reason why I think that is because those 3-5 douchebags make a negative post about once per minute, so the majority or possibly 60% or more of the posts about basketball come from 5-7 people. Whereas the average poster makes one post or no posts in a basketball thread, C34 posts 4-5 times and his son Fishwater 2-3 times. Then they start another spinoff thread just to spread the diseasebullysleftnut said:Why the <Rule 17> would you think that? There are 3 douchebags on this board who actively trash Stans. There are a few more who believe we've underachieved recently but don't want him gone, and the rest think he's doing a pretty good job (but were disappointed in this season's results).If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.
On no planet or plane of existence does that constitute "the majority".
bullysleftnut said:Why the <Rule 17> would you think that? There are 3 douchebags on this board who actively trash Stans. There are a few more who believe we've underachieved recently but don't want him gone, and the rest think he's doing a pretty good job (but were disappointed in this season's results).If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.
On no planet or plane of existence does that constitute "the majority".
Saying he should be fired for missing the NCAA tourney for a few years isn't the same as actively trashing him, which is what you, fishwater, and oemdawg do constantly.Coach34 said:bullysleftnut said:Why the <Rule 17> would you think that? There are 3 douchebags on this board who actively trash Stans. There are a few more who believe we've underachieved recently but don't want him gone, and the rest think he's doing a pretty good job (but were disappointed in this season's results).If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.
On no planet or plane of existence does that constitute "the majority".
We did a poll recently that had 43% of the people that voted saying Stansbury should be fired if he misses the NCAA Tourney next year. That's more than 3 douchebags Socrates
By the way, Socrates was a philosopher - not a mathemetician. If
you want to diss my counting skills, pick another ancient Greek
historical figure you know nothing about.
yes, he's been underachieving lately. but, overall, he has still been good for our program. i just think the chances of us getting somebody better are about 10%. No higher than 20%. that chance is notworth the risk to me. what makes me so mad about you is that you refuse to acknowledge any of the good about stansbury. ibash him too when i get mad, but i still see his value at the end of the day. your tone, know-it-all attitude, and trolling are unbearable and it makes me want to take a stance against anything you say. you're so close-minded and (usually) WRONG, that I am more "infriareiateaed" by you than i could ever hope to be by stans.Coach34 said:Roy Munson said: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....
Fact- Stansbury's record vs the RPI top 50 is around 37%....that's awful
Fact- Stansbury's record vs RPI top 25 teams is flat out embarrassing
No matter how much Whatever, Markymark, Hanmu, and Patdog try to say we are this top 40 program they are just flat out wrong...top 40 programs dont lose like we do to top 50 teams
How does 0-20 vs the RPI top 25 in the regular season the last 5 years not infiriate you? Yet all we get is more damn excuses
bullysleftnut said:Saying he should be fired for missing the NCAA tourney for a few years isn't the same as actively trashing him, which is what you, fishwater, and oemdawg do constantly.Coach34 said:bullysleftnut said:Why the <Rule 17> would you think that? There are 3 douchebags on this board who actively trash Stans. There are a few more who believe we've underachieved recently but don't want him gone, and the rest think he's doing a pretty good job (but were disappointed in this season's results).If you read this board you would think the majority hates Stans.
On no planet or plane of existence does that constitute "the majority".
We did a poll recently that had 43% of the people that voted saying Stansbury should be fired if he misses the NCAA Tourney next year. That's more than 3 douchebags Socrates
By the way, Socrates was a philosopher - not a mathemetician. If you want to diss my counting skills, pick another ancient Greek historical figure you know nothing about.