The Stansbury debate is quite entertaining....

[DowntownDawg]

....especially considering that any action promoted by the most ardent Stansbury bashers is around, oh, 13 months away.

It's also amusing that there are long term posters on this board that usually agree with each other ripping on each other over the subject. In one corner, there's HD6 and Costanza, and in the other corner there's Coach, Dawg@Au (I never realized he hated Stans so bad), Dawgstudent, Ronny Atmosphere, etc.

I find myself sort of torn about the whole thing. In any case, does anybody else feel like coaches sort of have an expiration date? The same pro-Stansbury arguments were used by the pro-Fulmer crowd, as well as the pro-Sherrill crowd. "Coach has one x% of his games, etc." It just seems like to me that after 10-12 years, fans get to wanting something new, unless their coach is winning conference or national championship consistently. Most of the time, at a place like State, this leads to bad things. It can be hard to get rid of an average to good coach at a place with not much tradition.

 

[DowntownDawg]

....especially considering that any action promoted by the most ardent Stansbury bashers is around, oh, 13 months away.

It's also amusing that there are long term posters on this board that usually agree with each other ripping on each other over the subject. In one corner, there's HD6 and Costanza, and in the other corner there's Coach, Dawg@Au (I never realized he hated Stans so bad), Dawgstudent, Ronny Atmosphere, etc.

I find myself sort of torn about the whole thing. In any case, does anybody else feel like coaches sort of have an expiration date? The same pro-Stansbury arguments were used by the pro-Fulmer crowd, as well as the pro-Sherrill crowd. "Coach has one x% of his games, etc." It just seems like to me that after 10-12 years, fans get to wanting something new, unless their coach is winning conference or national championship consistently. Most of the time, at a place like State, this leads to bad things. It can be hard to get rid of an average to good coach at a place with not much tradition.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...I've just come to the realization that if Byrne wants to see MSU win a NC in basketball, Stansbury, with each passing year, proves more & more he's not the man to accomplish that.

I've done my fair share of Stansbury butt kissing over the years.

But since basketball is the one sport where MSU has actually been within 2 wins of winning a NC, I think Stansbury's inability to advance in the tournament is a legit knock against him.

Of course, if Stansbury pulls one out of his hat this season & gets his young crew in the tournament, I'll be doing a lot of back-tracking & making a lot of "I was just kidding" & "it's only a messageboard" posts.

 

[99jc]

the 1st round of the NCAA or making a change to see if someone else can get us to the Sweet sixteen or better. I for one am ready for a change. You never know if someone else can do better unless you give them a try. It's like being married for 20 years and thinking just because your wife gives you sex 2 times a week she has the best stuff around. Then you end up trying some from the girl down the street only to realize you could have gotten it 4-5 times a week and it didn't smell like fish.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

your program is better than that. But he has had decent results during the regular season. I can really see both sides of this issue. Hell though, there are only three SEC teams that have not made the Sweet 16 in the last ten years, I think. I realize my opinion means nothing to you, but for this, I'd give him through next season to show some serious improvement, and not have to be told that your team is young again. It's been that way for about five straight years. He should get through next year regardless of what happens, but no guarantees after that.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...but I don't think you have anything to worry about in regards to this team making the dance.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

It's like being married for 20 years and thinking just because your wife gives you sex 2 times a week she has the best stuff around. Then you end up trying some from the girl down the street only to realize you could have gotten it 4-5 times a week and it didn't smell like fish.

Then your wife finds out about the girl down the street and instead of getting some good stuff twice a week or some great non-stinky stuff 5 times a week, you are now getting jack-**** seven times a week. But hey, at least it don't stink.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...post season.

Like I said, Miss. State back in the 1990's was within 2 wins of winning a NC in basketball.

MSU has never been within 2 games of winning a NC in baseball (though the baseball tradition is there to see that happen) & MSU, realistically speaking, will never be within 2 wins of winning a NC in football.

So we are stuck with a basketball coach who can not even get past the 2nd round of the tournament, even though basketball is the one sport where MSU has advanced far enough to be in a legit Final 4 scenario.

This is why I am growing impatient with Stansbury (that & his never-ending "we are young" thing that is a thing of his own making).

 

[Shmuley]

a new user name might be in order? Just curious; not bothered by your current one.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...but as many have pointed out, it's a Catch-22. Costanza would say that for a program with no history other than Williams/Stansbury, we are doing pretty well for ourselves.

There are tons of similar situations, all on different scales - Cutcliffe, Fulmer, Tuberville, Stan Heath, etc. At least with Croom there was no debate as to his level of pitifulness. Stansbury is almost like Jefferson's slavery wolf metaphor - You know at some point you need to let it go, but you're terrified to do it.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...my user name used to be a mockery of Polk's fear of Dudy Noble's awesome atmosphere overwhelming his youngsters while they are trying to concentrate on playing a baseball game.

Now it's about a guy named Ronny who is concerned with global warming.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

...but as many have pointed out, it's a Catch-22. Costanza would say that for a program with no history other than Williams/Stansbury, we are doing pretty well for ourselves.

There are tons of similar situations, all on different scales - Cutcliffe, Fulmer, Tuberville, Stan Heath, etc. At least with Croom there was no debate as to his level of pitifulness. Stansbury is almost like Jefferson's slavery wolf metaphor - You know at some point you need to let it go, but you're terrified to do it.

MSU had a great basketball program under Babe McCarthy, way before the Williams & Stansbury era.

Second, when the Stansbury data is broken out to support Stansbury, you see a good winning % but you also see a coach who is doing nothing to advance what Williams offered....the realization that MSU basketball is capable of going all the way.

So for all the people who want to cling to Stansbury's conference accomplishments as if they are sacred, there is no convincing them MSU basketball is destined for better things because MSU basketball has already been there.

It's like Alabama holding onto Shula because Shula can get Bama to a BCS bowl & win the SEC once every 5 years, while ignoring the fact Bama has the traditional of winning NC's though everybody realizes Shula will never sniff a NC while coaching @ Bama.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I do not hate Rick. Actually, he is one of my favorite all-time MSU coaches in the big three. I would have to put first term Polk up there at the top, with late 90s Jackie and Rick right behind. Yes, that make me a frontrunner. I like winning, so sue me.

Anyway, all I have done in this debate is offer up some information. Rick has done a lot of winning at State, no doubt about it. He has also struggled a little in the NCAAs, can't argue that either. Those seem to be the two major camps right now.

The frustrating part about Stansbury is the inconsistency. I've seen us come up with magnificent game plans and look great in executing them. I've seen other days when we look like we picked up five guys from the playground who had never met each other and told them to go play. We always seem to lose a few games a year that we have no business losing. These games have either been in the NCAAs or have likely hurt our seeding in the NCAAs.

I don't want Rick fired. I want him to pull it together and make the NCAAs next year. The Sweet 16 would be nice too since that is the glaring omission on his resume. However, if that is the route we eventually go (firing him) I am not going to go KB21 and withdraw my support from the program. Unlike my feelings toward Croom, I would respect the job Rick has done and hope that he found success somewhere else. On the contrary, I don't care if Croom interviews around the country and gets no better offers than RB coach at Valley.

I also think we are fooling ourselves if we don't think there are coaches out there who could be as successful or more than Rick. I agree with HD and Costanza that there are no guarantees when you hire a new coach that he will be successful, so it will be a gamble to make a change. I would imagine most every coach who has been fired was successful at some point in his career....John Brady, Nolan Richardson, Rod Barnes, and Cliff Ellis were successful at their SEC schools and got canned. Buzz Peterson, Kevin O'Neill, Jim Harrick, and Eddie Fogler were successful before being fired by SEC schools. Sometimes schools just decide it's time to change and take the gamble. Heck, the Broncos are doing the same thing right now with Shanahan.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

If by entertaining you mean the same, dull, horseshit argument that's been rehashed for the 58th time in the past two years, then yeah.....it's a hell of a good time.

Look, I agree with certain points from both sides...but until there's something new...holy crap, let it die!

 

[Hanmudog]

However, I think if we do not make the NCAA next year then we may need to go in another direction. Firing him this season would look like one of the dumbest moves ever in college basketball. No one expected this young team to make the Dance this season and we would look foolish for firing him now. I agree that the team has looked like crap most of this season but at the same time we only have two guys that even really played last season so I am realistic. If there is no improvement next year then yes we should pull the plug but Stansbury is one of the few coaches that we have had at MSU that really deserved a chance to redeem himself after a bad year.

 

[DowntownDawg]

...as good or better than Stansbury. That might or might not happen. There's definitely a risk there, but at some point, it needs to be taken.

 

[patdog]

Everyone I've seen says that Stans gets a pass for this year and if we miss postseason next year, you've got to at least seriously look at going in another direction. Some people spin his past accomplishments as a negative (though for the life of me I don't see how you can look at his 10-year career and think it's a negative) and some spin them as a positive.

My view, is that no school can let a coach just rest on his past accomplishments. We tried that with both Sherrill and Polk and it was a disaster both times. Stans's regular season and SEC tournament record is outstanding especially considering that he coaches at one of the tougher places to win (like it or not, it's the truth). He hasn't taken us as far in the NCAA tournament as anyone would like. Lately, we seem to be on a rotation of 1) no postseason, 2) NIT run, 3) NCAA bid. To me, that's about the minimum we should accept without making a change. It's not by any means the minimum that I'd be happy with. But there's been plenty of coaches in the SEC over the past 10 years who haven't come close to that kind of record and there's really no reason to think that we'd be in any better position to hire a coach than most of the rest of the schools in the conference (except that I do think we have one of the best ADs in the conference). To me, if Stans continues with the recent pattern, the risk of making a bad hire outweighs the potential benefit of hiring a coach better than Stans.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

yes, always

 

[maroonmania]

through next year to see how things are going before any evaluation of getting rid of him would be in order. First, while the NCAA tournament success is lacking, it has always been lacking minus the 1995&96 years under Williams. At least Rick does get us there quite often (much more regularly than Williams did) and he has had a lot of success within the conference since he's been here. Heck, we were 12-4 just last year and an SEC title (14-2) in 04. My biggest gripe with Rick lately is the constant soap opera that is MSU basketball. Whether its Robert Jackson, Tyrus Boswell, Walter Sharp, Gary Ervin, the Delks, Ben Hansbrough or now Kodi Augustus it just all gets a little old and has allowed us to beat the youth excuse to death especially lately. Our constant turnover rate actually has much more to do with our inconsistent play on the floor than the level of coaching we have (though we all recognize our floor coaching is lacking).

Here's the dilemma though. Making a changeout with Croom was a no brainer since the odds of doing better with a new coach were probably about 90%. However, given everything, including the fact that the majority of our fanbase doesn't even get serious about basketball until January, I would put the percentage of doing better than Stansbury's results with a coaching change at only about 30%. First off, in basketball, you are fighting with over 300 other programs in D1 for players and tourney access so we could certainly be doing much worse than we are. Stans' recruiting may have slipped a little in the last couple of years but he still works his tail off to get good players to Starkville and I don't know if a new coach will do that. At some point it will definitely be worth the risk to see if we can take another step up as a program if Stans can't get it done but I'm not quite ready to take that risk just yet. Another factor is that Stans isn't likely going anywhere even if he is able to elevate the program but most anyone we got to come in after Rick, if they had success beyone what we've already had, would likely not stay long IMO.

 

[8dog]

(since most people seem to say we need to give him until next year) if Varnado's stock soars during conference play and/or he listens to Jamont's advisors and leaves?

That would virtually assure us of no postseason next year. How would Stans be judged?

 

[dawgstudent]

it's his responsibility to bring in more talent.

 

[patdog]

It's his responsibility to win games. Whether he does that by bringing in great talent or by coaching up mediocre talent is his business. But yeah, he doesn't get too much of a pass if Varnado leaves early.

 

[seshomoru]

He has not brought in many talented players recently. I know people like to use his failure with the 2004 team in the tournament, but realistically, that team wasn't that talented. Roberts was the only draft pick off that squad and he was a 2nd rounder picked by Jerry West, who I'm convinced was just seeing how bad he could 'eff up the Grizzlies.

Stans has recruited extremely poorly as of late and it may cost him his job if we have back to back .500 seasons, which I see as entirely possible. His saving grace may be that the rest of the SEC sucks.

 

[8dog]

is not a lack of talent. Its that he loses to teams that he has more talent than generally b/c other teams dictate tempo and we have no idea how to get looks in the half court set. And then there's the issue of losing 4 starters to transfer in a 3 year period.

 

[DowntownDawg]

<span class="post-title">He gets the most out the players he has.</span>

...and while I have been the main poster on this board pointing out that we have very little upperclassmen talent and somewhat questionable young talent. Indeed the talent level is currently down, but I think historically, Stansbury has been the poster boy for getting the least out of the most.

Look at last year. No way a team with a very veteran Gordon and Rhodes should be an 8 seed. That team should've been anywhere from a 3-6. And we wouldn't be having this discussion today. But we dicked around in the preseason and couldn't get it done against Georgia in an empty gymnasium.

And this year, we have a coach that historically gets less out of his talent than he should coupled with a team that has very little talent. Translation? About 15-15 or so.

 

[Brutius]

is that with one more win, none of this would even be discussed. One win to make it to a sweet 16 and 90% of the Stansbury critics wouldn't be bitching right now. I'm sure coach34 would find something else to ***** about, or move his criteria to one elite 8 in 5 years, but for the most part if one of those teams had made it to the sweet 16 most of you would suddenly be ok with Stansbury as a coach. It's a stupid criteria for coaching success. Win one game in the NCAA tournament, you suck. Win 2 you are great? You guys are crazy, man!!!!!!

 

[Agentdog]

If you have a decent wife/girlfriend/F* buddy (Stans decent coach/recruiter) that gives you sex (NCAA tournament) every now and then, and you like having sex every now and then, you better appreciate it. Because if you kick your old lady out because every now and then isn't enough, then you could end up with no sex. But I know you see other guys (schools) on TV knocking out hot poon-tain (winning championships) but let's face it. We ain't Brad Pitt (UNC,Duke, etc.).

Now if you have a bat faced, ***** of a wife (Croom) that never gives it up and spends all your money. Then hell yeah boot her ***. There is no where to go but up in that situation(s). </p>

 

[patdog]

And trying to have any rational discussion of Rick Stansbury is pretty much guaranteed to be one of those times.

 

[seshomoru]

Last years team was average at best. Gordon was the best player, but he's not NBA talent. Rhodes? Good college forward. The Delks and Hansbrough? Average at best college guards. Varnado has a chance to be a lottery pick, but he really only started to show flashes of what he could do last year. That collection of "talent" is good enough to make it to the tourney when playing against the SEC. After that, I'm surprised we beat Oregon and pushed Memphis. He's had one draft pick since 2004, and honestly, only insano Jerry West would have drafted Roberts. He simply hasn't brought in talent, especially not on par with his recruiting reputation.

This years team is a potential lottery pick next year, a few ****** guards, and some other dudes that are young and incosistent. If he wins more than he loses, he did a good job. Unfortunately, that means he's done a terrible job bringing in good players.

 

[seshomoru]

<span class="post-title">He gets the most out the players he has.</span>

...and while I have been the main poster on this board pointing out that we have very little upperclassmen talent and somewhat questionable young talent. Indeed the talent level is currently down, but I think historically, Stansbury has been the poster boy for getting the least out of the most.

Look at last year. <span style="font-weight: bold;">No way a team with a very veteran Gordon and Rhodes should be an 8 seed. That team should've been anywhere from a 3-6.</span> And we wouldn't be having this discussion today. But we dicked around in the preseason and couldn't get it done against Georgia in an empty gymnasium.

And this year, we have a coach that historically gets less out of his talent than he should coupled with a team that has very little talent. Translation? About 15-15 or so.

And I think people vastly over rate how good those guys were. I think an 8 seed was a pretty good job with those players. Thus... Stans needs to get himself some better players.

 

[8dog]

gauge for the what you have to play with in college. Hansbrough is projected to go 23rd in the draft. I'd take him over just about anyone in front of him.

Just b/c you dont make it in the league doesn't mean you aren't a damn good college player. Rhodes is the best offensive post player we've had in my lifetime. Hell, I'd take Bowers and Zimmerman over Rondo when he was in college.

But the bigger point is this. We were more talented than both Miamis, Georgia (playing their second game of the day), South Alabama, and Southern Illinois last year. Win 3 of those and you don't play Memphis

In 07, we were more talented than South Carolina, George Mason, and Georgia. Win 2 of those and we probably go to the dance. I still can't believe we didn't make it that year.

But take away all that and simply watching us play is what is painful. The 2 minute freakout with a lead, the inability to break presses, the stagnant offense...

 

[futaba.79]

When have we been a truly talented team under Stans? By that I mean a team with NBA quality players? Never.

Stansbury's teams generally play to their capabilities. His good teams play over their heads (the '04 team, the '02 team). He turns guys like Gholar, Slater, Patterson, Bowers, Igneirski and so on into quality college players.

I scratch my head every game wondering what he's doing, but I never wonder if he's getting the most out of what he's got.

 

[seshomoru]

I'm not saying Stans is John Wooden. I think he's a bit better than some give him credit for, but I also think he brings in a lot lower talent level than some give him credit for.

He's stuck with a bunch of turds this year, and he may have finally dug himself too big of a hole.

 

[Agentdog]

While I do believe we underachieved vs Butler and Xavier. Expecting to reach the Sweet 16 at State is abit much. We have only done it twice in the history of the program and that was virtually the same team.

 

[drunkernhelldawg]

He's my favorite MSU coach now, and almost all time, but it might be good for both of us to go in new directions.

Or maybe he can pull a JoePa and get a kick *** second wind. If that happens, however, it's two seasons away. I don't really expect much improvement from this season to next. I hope to be wrong, but JV is leaving and that will leave us two big men away. Not to mention a reliable point guard and, maybe most of all, some real inspiration.

 

[dawgstudent]

And the reason the sweet 16 is bigger than the round of 32, you play a much better team in the 2nd round than your first round game.

 

[BlindDawg]

But the bigger point is this. We were more talented than both Miamis, Georgia (playing their second game of the day), South Alabama, and Southern Illinois last year. Win 3 of those and you don't play Memphis

In 07, we were more talented than South Carolina, George Mason, and Georgia. Win 2 of those and we probably go to the dance. I still can't believe we didn't make it that year.

I understand what you are saying, but good teams lose to teams that are worse than them all the time. Take the last couple of days for example - UNC lost to BC and Purdue lost to Illinois. Slip ups like that happen with every team every year for various reasons.

 

[dawgstudent]

that the shelf life of a coach is around 10 years. People see the same thing every year and are just ready for something new. Happened with Tuberville, Sherrill, and now is happening with Stansbury.

 

[Coach34]

good college players with whether or not they become NBA players. My example to that will always be Darryl Wilson. 00 was one the best 20 players to play in the SEC in the last 40 years, yet couldnt get to the NBA. We made a Sweet 16 in 1995 because of Darryl Wilson. You can say we had an NBA talent in Dampier too, but Dampier was not existent on offense. He was outstanding defensively, his impact wasnt Sweet 16 worthy- Darryl's was. It took National Champion UCLA to take us out that year in the Sweet 16. Had we not played them, we could have easily advanced instead.

Watching Williams set up plays for Wilson and him run defenders through all those damn double screens was great. It got him some great looks, alot of free throws, and open looks for other players whose defender had to help on Darryl.

And not one minute did he play in the NBA

 

[DowntownDawg]

...And I would submit that we had the second best team in terms of college talent and experience in the conference last year. And we played that way, except in that ridiculous preseason and conference tournament. If hans doesn't knock down three free throws in a row, we may not go dancing. As it was we earned the death draw.