Whats getting lost in the Recruiter/Kennedy debate is...

[Coach34]

(and I'm not trolling now- I'm serious)

I dont think you can judge The Recruiter and Kennedy the same way. State has higher expectations than Mississippi does in basketball. We are the far superior program.

Many of the Bury Apologists claim that we cant fire The Recruiter because he wins averages 20+ wins/season- yet will turn right around and say that isnt good enough though for Kennedy and Mississippi. How can an inferior program be held to a higher standard?

Now then, if March is what really matters- and you all know I wholeheartedly agree with this- then let's act like it when we discuss The Recruiter.

 

[patdog]

We are a superior program to Mississippi. But the point you refuse to acknowledge is that Stans is the main reason we're a superior program. There's really nothing in Richard Williams resume that's any different than the Rob Evans / Rod Barnes era at Mississippi other than that one season. And ifBryce Drew hadn't hit a miracle shot, there wouldn't be any difference at all.

 

[msudawg200]

Neither team has a great basketball history. State's is stronger but it's not so much stronger that we overshadow Mississippi. It's almost like comparing State to them in football. They have the greater "tradition" but the expectations for both should still be about the same - make bowl games anyway you can. I'd argue that the only reasons our expectations would be higher than there's in basketball is due to what Williams/Stans accomplished between '95 and '04.

So yes, if you're just looking at the last 6 years or whatever that both Stans and Kennedy have been in the league, there's not a huge difference (though 2 NCAA berths to 0 really stand out - I don't care that one was due to winning the SEC tourney because it still counts the same, and it also counts for winning the SEC tourney, which is prestigious in its own right). But you can't completely factor out what Stans did before that time because I think what he did before Kennedy got to Mississippi plays a big part in why our expectations are what they are. He had success, and the bar was raised. Plain and simple. So overall, I think you can judge them roughly the same way. Maybe Stans should have been expected to do a little bit better (which he clearly did), but it's not like we have a top program.

 

[futaba.79]

which pays more, sensible posts or stupid ones? How about when you contradict yourself? That's bound to be worth more with the traffic those classics generate.

 

[Faustdog]

We are a superior program to Mississippi. But the point you refuse to acknowledge is that Stans is the main reason we're a superior program. There's really nothing in Richard Williams resume that's any different than the Rob Evans / Rod Barnes era at Mississippi other than that one season. And ifBryce Drew hadn't hit a miracle shot, there wouldn't be any difference at all.

This is very true. Rob Evans had the Ole Miss program was rolling when Stans took over. Despite our Final Four run a few years before, we were in rough shape.<div>
</div><div>As much as I love the Final Four run, Richard Williams pretty much burned down the house getting there. Every player that played a major role in that run was gone the next year through graduation, jail, or leaving early.
<div>
</div><div>

</div></div>

 

[shsdawg]

prior to Stansbury arriving on campus. Other than the short run of Babe McCarthy there was very little difference in our program and theirs. If we are a superior program now it is in large part due to Stansbury. That you refuse to credit that hurts your arguements.

 

[Coach34]

Qualified for NCAA Tourney - State 13 times, Mississippi 6

SEC titles- State 6, Mississippi 0

SEC Tourney titles- State 3, Mississippi 1

Final Fours- State 1, Mississippi 0

Sweet 16's- State 3, Mississippi 1


" I'd argue that the only reasons our expectations would be higher than there's in basketball is due to what Williams/Stans accomplished between '95 and '04."


Why would you discount our 5 SEC titles and 5 NCAA qualifiers before 1995? Especially when they only 1 NCAA appearance in their history before 1997?

 

[Coach34]

prior to Stansbury arriving on campus. Other than the short run of Babe McCarthy there was very little difference in our program and theirs. If we are a superior program now it is in large part due to Stansbury. That you refuse to credit that hurts your arguements.

Of course The Recruiter gets credit for making our program stable- and not just hit and miss. I've never said he doesnt deserve credit. But like all coaches- that doesnt mean you get to stay forever.

I just want you guys to acknowledge the expectations are different- I'm not saying 1 word as to why they are.

 

[fishwater99]

Just ask them... They are a football school, oops I mean, Baseball School, oops I mean Tennis school, oops........

Comparing Bears Basketball to MSU Basketball is more like Comparing UK Football to UGA Football...

 

[Hanmudog]

Only an idiot would say that Kennedy under any circumstance has done a better job than Stansbury. I like Kennedy because he seems like a pretty stand up honest guy and is always quick to offer a complement to an opponent. I think he has done decent with what he has but he really should have made at least a couple of NCAA tourney's during his tenure with Chris Warren and some of the other guys they have had like Terrico White and David Huertas.

Stansbury has coached like shitfor the last three yearsbut still managed to beat Kennedy most of the time. I have a feeling both of them are going to be unemployed soon.</p>

 

[Coach34]

We're just talking about them staying employed or not

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

(and I'm not trolling now- I'm serious)

When they go out of their way to say they aren't.

 

[msudawg200]

Why would you discount our 5 SEC titles and 5 NCAA qualifiers before 1995? Especially when they only 1 NCAA appearance in their history before 1997?

For the same reason that we discount Mississippi's accomplishments in football in the 50's and 60's - because it's not very relevant anymore. The whole reason our expectations and their expectations have been similar in football is because the only major success that they had over us was so far back that it's not as relevant anymore. It's not like our success before Stans/Williams was in the 80's. It was back in the early 60's basically, and our expectations in basketball were the same as their's before Williams got to State. What Williams and Stans have done has raised the expectations a little bit, but not so much that it's "apples/oranges" comparing Stans to Kennedy.

This is from someone who like you, thinks Stans should be gone after this year baring a sweet 16 appearance (knowing he's back if he makes the tourney in any respect). So don't take this as me sticking up for him. I'm just saying he's still accomplished more than Kennedy who has accomplished very little if we're being honest.

 

[Coach34]

we were better then AND now. Thus the higher expectations.

And dont misunderstand- nobody is saying Kennedy has accomplished more than The Recruiter- just that they should be judged a little differently due to their respective programs. Bury Apologists cant throw out the 20 win excuse for the Recruiter and then turn around and say Kennedy should be fired for doing the same thing.

 

[DAWG61]

topic being discussed? Stansbury has roughly 10 games left as the head coach unless he forces MSU to keep him by winning. If he wins nobody is firing him. If he doesn't well....he had his shot.

 

[FlabLoser]

Richard Williams sucked. Except for the Final Four run which was somehow buzz kill because there were no returning starters. Somehow he gets no credit for sweeping Shaq's LSU and sharing an SEC title with them.

MSU basketball has pretty much been nothing except for Babe McCarty's little stretch which really doesn't count because it was a little stretch.

Stans is Stans, we all understand that.

To summarize in one statement, MSU basketball sucks except for when it hasn't sucked.