Get used to it. Coming next year to a basketball arena near you is the Renardo Sidney Show..
Thanks LT........
Thanks LT........
With the Sticklin Hire Stans is here forever...
- Thread starter fishwater99
- Start date
Get used to it. Coming next year to a basketball arena near you is the Renardo Sidney Show..
Thanks LT........
Thanks LT........
In one post you state Scott is a LT puppet and now you say Stans will be here forever. LT hates Stans and most people who are close to that situation know it. You are a true piece of work.</p>
He's still singing Cohen's praises more than ever. I thought Cohen was a good hire at the time and I think it's too early to say he wasn't, but I'm definitely starting to have my doubts. If he doesn't show at leastsome improvement next season, I'm going to be firmly in the fire Cohen camp. I'm not expecting even a regional necessarily, but if he wins single digit SEC games for 3 years in a row, I don't give a **** how bad things were when he took over (and they were about as bad an SEC baseball team as I've seen in 20 years) that's just not acceptable.
I have to ask you some questions...
1. You DO consider MSU winning the SEC West as a 17'ing accomplishment, don't you? I know that it does not meet the high standards that you have set for Stans (and probably for your own professional life), but it is something, right???
2. You DO think that MSU deserved to win BOTH games against UK, right? I mean, if you are any kind of Bulldog fan, you know we got 17'ed by the refs, right?
3. You DO realize that if we had not been 17'ed by the refs on EITHER of those games, that we would have been IN the NCAA tourney, right?
4. You also have to acknowledged that NO TEAM played better than MSU in the SEC basketball tourney, right?
Just answer these questions honestly.
1. You DO consider MSU winning the SEC West as a 17'ing accomplishment, don't you? I know that it does not meet the high standards that you have set for Stans (and probably for your own professional life), but it is something, right???
2. You DO think that MSU deserved to win BOTH games against UK, right? I mean, if you are any kind of Bulldog fan, you know we got 17'ed by the refs, right?
3. You DO realize that if we had not been 17'ed by the refs on EITHER of those games, that we would have been IN the NCAA tourney, right?
4. You also have to acknowledged that NO TEAM played better than MSU in the SEC basketball tourney, right?
Just answer these questions honestly.
Winning the West is fun but ultimately meaningless. We did not "deserve" to win either UK game any more than Butler "deserved" to beat Duke. We failed to close out both games and UK took advantage of that. Neither of them should have been a last possession type game had we made a couple of plays down the stretch. Refs are refs and UK is UK. You have to factor that going into the game. We did, and still had a chance to win both of them.
wasnt the basketball coach at MSU? Do you have one post on here in the last 6 months not related to Stansbury?
Just curious. Its like this is all you ever think about. Surely you have an opinion on something else and can beat that into the ground for another 6 months until basketball season??
PS for those of you who saw this post in the other Stans thread dumbasswater99 started earlier. If he can repeat post why can't I??
Just curious. Its like this is all you ever think about. Surely you have an opinion on something else and can beat that into the ground for another 6 months until basketball season??
PS for those of you who saw this post in the other Stans thread dumbasswater99 started earlier. If he can repeat post why can't I??
like we needed validation. Keep up the great insight. On a positive note, clearly you don't know Scott at all and that is good for all of us.</p>
Keep firmly seated behind your desk and stay out of our way.</p>
Keep firmly seated behind your desk and stay out of our way.</p>
is something I will take every year. What would you rather do, finish second in the West? That truly is dumb. Is winning the West all I want our basketball program to achieve. No. But winning the West does mean something. I want to see our team in the NCAA tourney every single year and eventually a national title would be awesome. A sweet 16 would be nice, too. But IF we do not win the West our chances of getting into the big tourney are practically out the window considering the weak performances by teams in the West recently. So ultimately for the humpteenth time, winning the west does mean something.
How can you argue with this?:
"Refs are refs and UK is UK. You have to factor that going into the game."
My response:
MSU sports fans will be rednecks... You have to factor that going into the game. So if the refs call another game like that in Vegas, we ain't throwin' water bottles. It's time to get Muslim on their ***. Screw this Christian crap...
"Refs are refs and UK is UK. You have to factor that going into the game."
My response:
MSU sports fans will be rednecks... You have to factor that going into the game. So if the refs call another game like that in Vegas, we ain't throwin' water bottles. It's time to get Muslim on their ***. Screw this Christian crap...
MSU and UM hang West banners for going 8-8.
UPig goes to the NCAAs at 7-9.
In that case, I woudl rather finish third in the West.
None of those three are all that much to write home about, but given a choice between winning the West and going to the NIT or not winning the West and going to the NCAAs, I would take the NCAAs 100 times out of 50.
UPig goes to the NCAAs at 7-9.
In that case, I woudl rather finish third in the West.
None of those three are all that much to write home about, but given a choice between winning the West and going to the NIT or not winning the West and going to the NCAAs, I would take the NCAAs 100 times out of 50.
2007 was an odd year. I'd say 90% of the time (and it's probably higher) whichever team wins the west is in a lot better position to make the NCAA's because (get ready for a big revelation) they have a better record. WOW.
This idea that has begun to sprout out around here that somehow winning the west is a bad thing is just simply moronic. People whose only mission is to down Stans have created this idiotic notion. Since Stans has won the west a few times, they have to try anything to make it sound like that's a bad thing. Mind-blowingly stupid.
This idea that has begun to sprout out around here that somehow winning the west is a bad thing is just simply moronic. People whose only mission is to down Stans have created this idiotic notion. Since Stans has won the west a few times, they have to try anything to make it sound like that's a bad thing. Mind-blowingly stupid.
The problem (to me) is that winning the West has seemingly become the satisfaction level for the program and for the coach. I happen to think that is too low, since winning the West this year and 2007 don't get you in the NCAAs. So in that respect, it means nothing. But do I want to be the least crappy of six crappy programs? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
winning the west isn't the destination, but it certainly is one of the stops we should be shooting for. And the west will not always be as down nor has it always been as down as it is now. There will come a time when winning the west means something. I'd prefer for it to be us hanging that banner in up AND down years.
your point is well taken; there can be exceptions as you pointed out; however, generally, winning the West gives a team a better chance to make the tourney than not winning it. If I can make the tourney finishing second and willbe left out after finishing first in the West I am completely with you...send me to the tourney.
Has C34 already assigned you your talking point for next year? What are you going to ***** about the first nine games in that case?