What will the interest level be among coaches if Stans gets the axe?
- Thread starter AshleySchaffer
- Start date
what you say issugary sweet butour colors are still maroon and white. a brand sells better than stats. we are not a name brand like Bama or UT and we don't have the budget any of the above have.not sure there are many coaches whothinkof our program the way you describe it.DAWG61 said:
Err, the two don't compare. <div>shsdawg said:
</div><div>If you want a comparison, then you really need to go to Arkansas football, Circa Danny Ford.</div><div>
</div><div>Danny Ford = Richard Williams</div><div>Houston Nutt = Rick Stansbury</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Seriously, Coach Ford was the first to take the Razorbacks to good times in the SEC. He got them their first SEC Championship game, and Got them started on the road to SEC calibre players. Now COach WIlliams took MSU far higher in basketball, but the comparison is fine. In both cases the schools got a taste of the better life, and once the coaches starting swing back downward, they cut bait. In both cases they went with Coaches who are good enough to get decent records, but there was a ceiling, because both coaches they went to next were vastly overrated. Nutt got his records in Arkansas by having an Abyssmal OOC, and enough talent to essentially avers 4-4 every year in the SEC. Coach Stansbury seems eerily similar , 9-7 average.</div><div>
</div><div>Now I'm not saying we will have a Bobby Petrino like BB coach land in our laps, but at the moment We've hit our ceiling with Stansbury at coach. Even if we get a horrible coach, we will be moving forward, because we will have finally gotten off the treadmill, and so long as we have Stansbury that is what we are on, a treadmill because we are just cooing through the motions while ultimately standing in place.</div>
Why is a big name coach so important to you? Give it up. We're not getting one. Give up on Marshall and Smart too. They aren't coming here.AshleySchaffer said:
True, but the current deal with the SEC for network rights says we can still do more than we once did. and a package that pays a head basketball coach in the 1.5 - 2.0 Million should not be out of reach. We are not in the old days, when our Athletic budget couldn't afford such a deal. <div>idog said:
</div><div>Now whether we as a school want to afford that money for a head coach in men's basketball is a different story.</div><div>
</div><div>And we don't have to outspend UT,BAMA, Ark. We just have to find the rich coach or us and keep them.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
at least as much as it is of how good of a job the MSU job is. I can guarantee you that if both jobs were open and Calipari was told that he had to pick one of those two jobs and couldn't work anywhere else, he'd be wearing orange. You're either delusional or an idiot ifyou think otherwise. Tennessee pays their first year mid-major coach more than we pay our 14-year coach who has won more games than any other coach in our history.
idog said:
I'm simply stating that as far as SEC wins go the recent hires of Counzo Martin, Mike Anderson, Anthony Grant and Frank Heath have been made by teams with less wins than MSU. So in order to stay above those schools further MSU has to hire a better coach than those 4.
quantify wins in the SEC. You can't quantify desire of other coaches to be the head coach of your program. I said MSU is in the top 1/3 of ALL SEC teams in conference wins the last decade in a half. That's a FACT. You spouted off that MSU is the 9th or 10th best coaching job in the SEC. That's an OPINION. You can dislike it or not agree with it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that MSU is now facing the challenge to hire a better coach than Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas just did in order to continue to be a more successful program in relation to SEC wins.
witness Bucky this time around. One thing you need to get through your head is I'm not defending Stans. I'm probably still one of the very few who is stillnetural about him. I'm not going to be bent out of shape either way this goes. I still can see the good he has done over the years, esp when you look at our basketball program prior to his arrival on campus. I can also see the gripe, even if I disagree about the main reason for it. Whoever the coach is next year, Stans, a suprising hire, or whoever we could get, he will have his work cut out for him next year.It has the potential to be a 1997 type year.
OMlawdog said:
Sure the big east and ACC are excellent conferences. But with that comes incredibly tough coaching jobs si ce there are a few perennial elite teams in each and it's incredibly tough to have success if you aren't at one of those programs.
Quick- who coaches Providence? It's that black dude with the thing on the back of his head. Ed something? Who coaches Rutgers? Who coaches Seton Hall? Who knows. I follow basketball a ton and all I know about those programs is that Keno Davis was canned at Providence, Mike Rosario left Rutgers and went to Florida, and Herb Pope who is at Seton Hall has 14 lives.
Couldn't tell you a single current coach.
With Georgetown, uconn, pitt, 'cuse, Marquette, and 'ville all at the top year after year, are any of those jobs destination jobs? **** no.
Neither is USF. Nobody looks at USF and thinks- man, that's where I want to be at to dominate.
Same with the ACC. Miami, BC, etc etc etc. Hell, why would someone want to be at Wake even? They canned a coach who had taken them to multiple bids, got them ranked very high, got them back to back bids, and recruited great.
I'm not a math genius by any means but believe I was taught that half of ANYTHING was always below the average. I suppose a few spectacularly bad hires could skew that so perhaps the median hire would have been a better choice of words.But then again, a few spectacularly good hires would bring that average back up so maybe it works pretty close as originally stated. Anyway, you get my drift I think.
Criminy! Stans has been HC for sixteen (16) years. MSU has been (very, very)patient.
Heck, if MSU hires a new coach that takes a/one (1) team to a Sweet 16, it's more than Stans (with a boatload of talent) has done since pre-Y2K.
Southern Illinois has had more NCAA tourney success than MSU has experienced since1999.
Stans cannot say he hasn't had the opportunities,talent, etc. to "make it happen".
If we want more of the same, Stans is our guy. If not, MSU must hire someone else.
Heck, if MSU hires a new coach that takes a/one (1) team to a Sweet 16, it's more than Stans (with a boatload of talent) has done since pre-Y2K.
Southern Illinois has had more NCAA tourney success than MSU has experienced since1999.
Stans cannot say he hasn't had the opportunities,talent, etc. to "make it happen".
If we want more of the same, Stans is our guy. If not, MSU must hire someone else.