I've come to the conclusion

[TheDogFather]

that Rick Stansbury is the worst thing to happen to MSU sports in the history of our great land grant institution. The hate Rick Stansbury crusade has taken on political proportions. It is grown to the point where, uninformed casual readers, posters and fans alike are convinced that the reason we are where we are today is completely the fault of the ineptitude of Rick Stansbury. It doesn't really matter where we are, by the way, just that the reason we are is Rick Stansbury. And that it's bad.

Record ticket sales, record attendance, TV appearances, national media exposure, competitive performance, W's and L's and such have all been washed away by an overwhelming attempt to discredit Rick Stansbury. Personal attacks, selective memory and the alteration of the actual history of his coaching tenure can be found on this board with a simple search. His wife is hated, his kids are criticized for their proximity to the players, his staff are discounted. All of a sudden it is cool to hate Rick Stansbury.

Patronization aside, an ounce of respect might be appropriate. Now as almost to predict the future, there will be responses to me as those ill informed, hyperbole laden statements that are regularly thrown at Stansbury. And that's OK. After all this is an anonymous internet sports message board. But to preempt all of the negative responders, and to quote Carnac the Magnificent, "May a swarm of gay chiggers open a disco on your grandfather."

The end.

[blacklistedbully]

Actually, I'm with you. The man had major success before he shit-the-bed at the end. He and his family are die-hard supporters of MSU. Yes, he made bad choices at the end, perhaps in an effort to keep up with increased expectations. But he and his teams accomplished so much for such a long period of time. While I agree it was time for a change, I am thankful for what he did for us over his career.

[Pollodawg]

I am tired of hearing about the dude to be honest. I mean, damn, what else can be said.....

[Goat Holder]

Eh, just use the information you have to realize who the truly ignorant posters are and aren't. After that, it doesn't matter.

Facts: Rick Stansbury was a good coach who did good things at MSU. He helped put us on the map as an assistant, and helped keep us there and won us a few conference championships. He lost control at the end (for a myriad of reasons) and it got away from him, costing him his job. He left the position better than he found it. We are better off for having Rick Stansbury as our coach. The end.

[TheRef]

I am going to preface my reply with the fact that I supported Rick Stansbury throughout his whole tenure, including his last year as HC of the Mississippi State Men's Basketball program. Okay, now that I have that out of the way. Rick Stansbury had little control over his team during his tenure. Players, in the later years, used drugs routinely before games and showed little to no respect for him. The discipline showed as the season went on for his teams. Now am I saying that Rick Stansbury is a bad person? No. Was he a great recruiter? You're damn right. Was he a great coach? Not necessarily. He was definitely a product of his recruiting, which most of the time was high quality. Now let's take a look at his last few years as HC.

We all remember the Brawl in Paradise (Hawai'i) between Elgin Bailey and the prodigal son Renardo Sidney. Elgin was kicked off the team and Sidney went on to have a very lackluster career here. Stansbury did have some bright spots and bright players: Bost, Varnado, Powers, etc. But his teams as a whole never produced. No Sweet 16 appearances during his 14-year tenure at the helm. He may be the winningest head coach in MSU history, but he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with, and that can be placed solely on the shoulders of Rick Stansbury whether you want it to or not.

[coastdoglover]

You nailed it!



Eh, just use the information you have to realize who the truly ignorant posters are and aren't. After that, it doesn't matter.

Facts: Rick Stansbury was a good coach who did good things at MSU. He helped put us on the map as an assistant, and helped keep us there and won us a few conference championships. He lost control at the end (for a myriad of reasons) and it got away from him, costing him his job. He left the position better than he found it. We are better off for having Rick Stansbury as our coach. The end.

[Bo Darville]

I'm a huge Stansbury fan and I am extremely appreciative of what he did for our program. However, it was time for a change. He made some mistakes at the end (bost, sidney, etc.) that ultimately cost him his job. When you are involved in big-time athletics, you ultimately pay for your mistakes with your job. It comes with the territory. That is why these guys make the big bucks. I don't feel sorry for Rick, nor do I regret us making a change. That is life as a head coach in a BCS league. It just is. If he doesn't like it, he could have coached high school basketball for years and made $45,000 per year, with more job stability.

[Goat Holder]

But his teams as a whole never produced. No Sweet 16 appearances during his 14-year tenure at the helm.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Tournaments are there to determine a champ. If you don't win the championship, it doesn't matter how far you get in the tournament. Sure, you can take solace in a Final Four appearance or a College World Series appearance for example, but ultimately you didn't win the tournament. Plus the matchups vary. So to me, it's stupid to base someones accomplishments on how far they got in the tournament. Either they have the ch'ips or they don't. After that, it's regular season accomplishments. And Stans had some good ones. Plus actual tourney championships.


He may be the winningest head coach in MSU history, but he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with, and that can be placed solely on the shoulders of Rick Stansbury whether you want it to or not.

I don't know that your statement had the effect you wanted. I'll just leave that bold part out there for others to interpret.

[Bo Darville]

I am going to preface my reply with the fact that I supported Rick Stansbury throughout his whole tenure, including his last year as HC of the Mississippi State Men's Basketball program. Okay, now that I have that out of the way. Rick Stansbury had little control over his team during his tenure. Players, in the later years, used drugs routinely before games and showed little to no respect for him. The discipline showed as the season went on for his teams. Now am I saying that Rick Stansbury is a bad person? No. Was he a great recruiter? You're damn right. Was he a great coach? Not necessarily. He was definitely a product of his recruiting, which most of the time was high quality. Now let's take a look at his last few years as HC.

We all remember the Brawl in Paradise (Hawai'i) between Elgin Bailey and the prodigal son Renardo Sidney. Elgin was kicked off the team and Sidney went on to have a very lackluster career here. Stansbury did have some bright spots and bright players: Bost, Varnado, Powers, etc. But his teams as a whole never produced. No Sweet 16 appearances during his 14-year tenure at the helm. He may be the winningest head coach in MSU history, but he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with, and that can be placed solely on the shoulders of Rick Stansbury whether you want it to or not.

I was really enjoying your post until you mentioned Bost as a bright spot. Bost did more to damage the program than anyone. In no way does he compare to Powers and Varnado.

[Goat Holder]

I don't feel sorry for Rick, nor do I regret us making a change. That is life as a head coach in a BCS league. It just is. If he doesn't like it, he could have coached high school basketball for years and made $45,000 per year, with more job stability.

No doubt about that. I don't feel sorry for any coach in this day and age. I especially laugh when nimrods like Lou Holtz get to talking about how people should be loyal to coaches and they should go out on their own terms. That's not how the world works. Remove all the money from college football, and maybe he'd have a point. But not right now.

[Goat Holder]

I was really enjoying your post until you mentioned Bost as a bright spot. Bost did more to damage the program than anyone. In no way does he compare to Powers and Varnado.

Agreed, Bost was a shit head with a terrible attitude.

[Saltydog]

for that but he is EXACTLY the reason we are in the position we are now.........How can you say he's not????? He lost control of the players and his team......They no longer respected him and most of this was due to Sidney and Bost...........He let that fat tub of goo ruin him and the other players........Had Stans simply kicked his fat ass off the team, we wouldn't be discussing this today.......And "NO" I don't hate the man.........And was for you sir, "May a desert weirdo lower his figs into your mother's soup"

[smootness]

Stans did great things for State, and I'm glad he was our coach. It was time for him to go.

I would guess essentially 100% of the fanbase agrees with the 1st sentence, and most agree with the 2nd as well. Some don't, fine...but the opinion of Stans from both 'sides' in this debate is roughly the same...it's just that some feel he is being unfairly criticized, so they go to the extreme the other way and overly praise him. Then those that criticize him feel he's getting too much praise and go to the extreme in criticizing him again.

It's stupid. Let's just all agree that he did some great things and that most of his tenure as coach was awesome. And then we can agree to let it go...some think it was time for him to go, some don't, but he is, in fact, gone.

[Bo Darville]

No doubt about that. I don't feel sorry for any coach in this day and age. I especially laugh when nimrods like Lou Holtz get to talking about how people should be loyal to coaches and they should go out on their own terms. That's not how the world works. Remove all the money from college football, and maybe he'd have a point. But not right now.

That's it. Mullen/Ray/Cohen have tough jobs. Every move is dissected daily on boards like this. If you lose, you are fired. But they aren't making $50,000 a year either. They also get their contract paid out if they are fired. When you get paid the big bucks, a lot of crap comes with it.

[tcdog70]

that Rick Stansbury is the worst thing to happen to MSU sports in the history of our great land grant institution. The hate Rick Stansbury crusade has taken on political proportions. It is grown to the point where, uninformed casual readers, posters and fans alike are convinced that the reason we are where we are today is completely the fault of the ineptitude of Rick Stansbury. It doesn't really matter where we are, by the way, just that the reason we are is Rick Stansbury. And that it's bad.

Record ticket sales, record attendance, TV appearances, national media exposure, competitive performance, W's and L's and such have all been washed away by an overwhelming attempt to discredit Rick Stansbury. Personal attacks, selective memory and the alteration of the actual history of his coaching tenure can be found on this board with a simple search. His wife is hated, his kids are criticized for their proximity to the players, his staff are discounted. All of a sudden it is cool to hate Rick Stansbury.

Patronization aside, an ounce of respect might be appropriate. Now as almost to predict the future, there will be responses to me as those ill informed, hyperbole laden statements that are regularly thrown at Stansbury. And that's OK. After all this is an anonymous internet sports message board. But to preempt all of the negative responders, and to quote Carnac the Magnificent, "May a swarm of gay chiggers open a disco on your grandfather."

The end.

and the Choir said AMEN

[Goat Holder]

for that but he is EXACTLY the reason we are in the position we are now.........How can you say he's not????? He lost control of the players and his team......They no longer respected him and most of this was due to Sidney.........Sidney was the beginning of the end for Stans..........He let that fat tub of goo ruin him and the other players........Had Stans simply kicked his fat ass off the team, we wouldn't be discussing this today.......And "NO" I don't hate the man.........And was for you sir, "May a desert weirdo lower his figs into your mother's soup"

We'll never know until Ray's tenure plays out. It's a fact that Ray is playing with mainly Stans' players. Guess we'll just have to see if Ray out-does what Stans did over the next 2-3 years as those guys become upperclassmen.

[Political Hack]

I think even C34 would agree that he did some good things at State. It was just an argument about the best way to reach the next level and some people thought he wasn't the right person to do that. I think we owe the man a great deal of gratitude though and hope he will be appreciated and respected the next time he graces the Hump. It took a few years with Jackie before everyone was back on board. It will be that way with Stans too IMO.

My nuggets fear: The same thing doesn't happen to CDM. We've got a floor of six wins. We reach that, no one should ever yell for his head.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

that Rick Stansbury is the worst thing to happen to MSU sports in the history of our great land grant institution. The hate Rick Stansbury crusade has taken on political proportions. It is grown to the point where, uninformed casual readers, posters and fans alike are convinced that the reason we are where we are today is completely the fault of the ineptitude of Rick Stansbury. It doesn't really matter where we are, by the way, just that the reason we are is Rick Stansbury. And that it's bad.

Record ticket sales, record attendance, TV appearances, national media exposure, competitive performance, W's and L's and such have all been washed away by an overwhelming attempt to discredit Rick Stansbury. Personal attacks, selective memory and the alteration of the actual history of his coaching tenure can be found on this board with a simple search. His wife is hated, his kids are criticized for their proximity to the players, his staff are discounted. All of a sudden it is cool to hate Rick Stansbury.

Patronization aside, an ounce of respect might be appropriate. Now as almost to predict the future, there will be responses to me as those ill informed, hyperbole laden statements that are regularly thrown at Stansbury. And that's OK. After all this is an anonymous internet sports message board. But to preempt all of the negative responders, and to quote Carnac the Magnificent, "May a swarm of gay chiggers open a disco on your grandfather."

The end.

You are correct in that Coach Stansbury did some really good things in his tenure at MSU and should not be run down. However, the reason for all the message board vitriole on the subject is simple: When our current team loses, the Stansbury diehards come out of the woodwork to proclaim at the top of their lungs "OMGZ WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE LET STANS GO SEE HOW MUCH WE SUCK!!!!!"; and when our current team wins, the opposite faction will scream "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!!!".

I have made a lot of posts on the subject in the past, but my main points have always been that people need to quit bashing the new coach because they are upset about the old coach being fired. If you believe that did not happen over and over on the boards in the past 18 months then you have been hiding under a rock somewhere. Now that we have won a little more, those posters have gone back into hiding and I agree with you that trashing the former coach is unnecessary.

Just wait though. Just as soon as we have a bad loss those same anti-Ray posts will be right back on all of the boards, prompting the defenses from the anti-stans side. It's not going to stop and both sides are to blame.

[Goat Holder]

I think even C34 would agree that he did some good things at State. It was just an argument about the best way to reach the next level and some people thought he wasn't the right person to do that. I think we owe the man a great deal of gratitude though and hope he will be appreciated and respected the next time he graces the Hump. It took a few years with Jackie before everyone was back on board. It will be that way with Stans too IMO.

My nuggets fear: The same thing doesn't happen to CDM. We've got a floor of six wins. We reach that, no one should ever yell for his head.

You bring up an interesting point......who's to say what that floor is? Who makes that call? Nobody else has ever matched what Stansbury has done. And don't say 1996......that was a hot run in the tourney.....Stans 2004 team was just as good and actually earned a higher seed. So who's to say there's somebody else out that would take our job that can do better?

[MadDawg]

My nuggets fear: The same thing doesn't happen to CDM. We've got a floor of six wins. We reach that, no one should ever yell for his head.

That's the thing though - this same mentality almost caught up with Mullen this year. Our fan base was very close to turning on him. You had fans openly campaigning to get him fired and hire a new coach. There were lists of potential new hires and even an heir apparent annointed. All while Mullen was in the process of navigating his team through a tough season filled with injuries. And as the chorus of "he's never beaten a top 20 team!" gets louder and louder each year, soon these guys will be re-writing the football history books too and Mullen will be relegated as a horrible coach who couldn't recruit and "wasted" the best talent we've ever seen at MSU. (Yes, I see the irony)

[maroonmania]

I think even for those that felt it was time to make the change, I can't believe anyone would have any real disdain for Rick Stansbury. Rick seems to be a good guy and family man in every way. The ONLY accomplishment in modern MSU basketball worth speaking of that didn't have Stans either as assistant coach or HC at MSU was the 1991 SEC championship. I personally have much more ill will towards Ron Polk and how everything went down in baseball than anything negative towards Stansbury. Stans was just not a disciplinarian in any shape or form and the program eventually got away from him, end of story.

[TopDog58]

So the Bury lovers get on to Coach and the Bury detractors about obsessing about Bury, but you had the bright idea to start ANOTHER thread to beat your Bury loving points across yet again? So who's obsessed now in this whole ridiculous ordeal? I'm so damn confused.

Don't you have some West championship trophies to polish?

[Coach34]

You bring up an interesting point......who's to say what that floor is? Who makes that call? Nobody else has ever matched what Stansbury has done. And don't say 1996......that was a hot run in the tourney.....Stans 2004 team was just as good and actually earned a higher seed. So who's to say there's somebody else out that would take our job that can do better?

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

[maroonmania]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

And the real difference in those 2 teams was we replaced Marcus Grant (95) with Dontae Jones (96). And point of the matter is that once Dontae got "hot" toward the end of the year in 96 he was virtually unstoppable and a better player for us than Grant at tournament time.

[dickiedawg]

Eh, just use the information you have to realize who the truly ignorant posters are and aren't. After that, it doesn't matter.

Facts: Rick Stansbury was a good coach who did good things at MSU. He helped put us on the map as an assistant, and helped keep us there and won us a few conference championships. He lost control at the end (for a myriad of reasons) and it got away from him, costing him his job. He left the position better than he found it. We are better off for having Rick Stansbury as our coach. The end.

I don't remember what the situation was when Rick Stansbury was hired, but I don't see how it was possibly worse than what it was when he left. We were two years removed from the lone Final Four appearance in our history and an NIT team his first year. We're pretty familiar with what Stans left for Ray to work with, and it was no NIT team.

[TopDog58]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

Yea, the 96 team got lucky as they breezed by the 1 and 2 seed no name teams UConn and Cincinnati to reach the Final Four. Meanwhile Bury went to battle against the toughest 6 seed, 7 seed, and 12 seed in the history of the NCAA tournament.

[TopDog58]

I don't remember what the situation was when Rick Stansbury was hired, but I don't see how it was possibly worse than what it was when he left. We were two years removed from the lone Final Four appearance in our history and an NIT team his first year. We're pretty familiar with what Stans left for Ray to work with, and it was no NIT team.

Starting lineup of Tang Hamilton, Antonio Jackson, Robert Jackson, Markell Patterson, and Todd Myles with at least 6 bench players including Lincoln and Q Smith, Gholar, Tyrus Boswell, Zimmerman etc.

Ray inherited a team with a quarter of that talent.

[TheDogFather]

So the Bury lovers get on to Coach and the Bury detractors about obsessing about Bury, but you had the bright idea to start ANOTHER thread to beat your Bury loving points across yet again? So who's obsessed now in this whole ridiculous ordeal? I'm so damn confused.

Don't you have some West championship trophies to polish?

All of the responses were well thought out and intelligent until you had the bright idea to approach your keyboard.

Predictably idiotic.

[Goat Holder]

26-4 in 2004, undefeated on the road in the regular season. Bye Bye.

Stans' teams also ran up against Duke in 2005 and Memphis in 2008. I can go on 4 eva.

[Goat Holder]

The job itself is what I meant. Ray is going to be given 4 years minimum. Personnel can change easily. That's not the issue. It's how the position is seen. Due to Stans, we have winning history and a new practice facility to recruit towards. Looking simply at current personnel is tunnel thinking.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I am going to preface my reply with the fact that I supported Rick Stansbury throughout his whole tenure, including his last year as HC of the Mississippi State Men's Basketball program. Okay, now that I have that out of the way. Rick Stansbury had little control over his team during his tenure. Players, in the later years, used drugs routinely before games and showed little to no respect for him. The discipline showed as the season went on for his teams. Now am I saying that Rick Stansbury is a bad person? No. Was he a great recruiter? You're damn right. Was he a great coach? Not necessarily. He was definitely a product of his recruiting, which most of the time was high quality. Now let's take a look at his last few years as HC.

We all remember the Brawl in Paradise (Hawai'i) between Elgin Bailey and the prodigal son Renardo Sidney. Elgin was kicked off the team and Sidney went on to have a very lackluster career here. Stansbury did have some bright spots and bright players: Bost, Varnado, Powers, etc. But his teams as a whole never produced. No Sweet 16 appearances during his 14-year tenure at the helm. He may be the winningest head coach in MSU history, but he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with, and that can be placed solely on the shoulders of Rick Stansbury whether you want it to or not.


I don't believe that MSU players "routinely" played games high. Practice maybe, but even that not "routinely". Do you have some proof of this? If not, you are guilty of slander.

Interesting how you say "he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with." The main question now is whether we'll ever get back what he built for us. I'd say yes, but when I look around the SEC, I don't see a lot of teams that accomplished what he did during his tenure. So now we're running on a hope and a prayer. I agree there are people who believe in that. Maybe they're right.

[drunkernhelldawg]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

You are absolutely right about 95 and 96; luck and a hot run had nothing to do with it. We spent some of the 96 season unranked (bad loss to OM), but fans knew that we were a legit top ten team, and we proved it in the SEC tourney (one of our greatest performances ever). And UCLA was just too much better than anybody in 95. Tough draw there.
Another thing I've always felt is that our ineffective transition from Final Four to the 97 season (started by getting blown off the court by Wake Forest in the Great 8 Tourney), was a major factor in our inability to rise above the high middle of NCAA hoops. It's actually been a pretty interesting 20 years, going back to hanging the banner in 91.

[TopDog58]

All of the responses were well thought out and intelligent until you had the bright idea to approach your keyboard.

Predictably idiotic.
Get out of here with your bullshit. You started another thread with the intention of baiting and fanning the flames, I called you on it.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Yea, the 96 team got lucky as they breezed by the 1 and 2 seed no name teams UConn and Cincinnati to reach the Final Four. Meanwhile Bury went to battle against the toughest 6 seed, 7 seed, and 12 seed in the history of the NCAA tournament.

Your last sentence is meant to be sarcastic, but it's actually pretty much true. Xavier. Butler. Texas in Dallas.

[bully99]

If Bury is Evil#1, you forgot Evil#2 Polk. Can't mention one without the other.

[TopDog58]

26-4 in 2004, undefeated on the road in the regular season. Bye Bye.

Stans' teams also ran up against Duke in 2005 and Memphis in 2008. I can go on 4 eva.

That's usually what happens to an 8 or 9 seed. 2005 preseason ranked #12 finished unranked after going 9-7 in West to earn 9 seed. 2008 never ranked the entire year while going 12-4 in a weak ass West and losing to UGA in the tornado game to earn an 8 seed.

[RougeDawg]

Bottom line with Stans is this. He should have accomplished a lot more than he did, given the talent and circumstances under which he coached. He continued to underachieve when it counted. End of story. For those of you who refuse to as acknowledge this, you are beyond help. Any decent coach would have taken that '04 team to sweet 16. And decent coach takes Stans last team to the tourney. Both of those debacles and many others were simply inexcusable.

Yes he had winning seasons, but that's basically all he had. Look at this current team under Ray. They have a shot at finishing with a winning record, if they find a way to win at least 4 more games. Does that satisfy you? With this team yes, but hell no with the talent Stans had. I want consistent tourney appearances and some deep runs once we get in. Stans wasn't doing that partly because the winning OOC came against some shitty opponents. This is what fogs most of your minds about Stans. Had he playe and beaten decent teams during the season, maybe we would have made more tourneys and made more noise when we got in. It's all a wash because he was slightly above average at best.

[MadDawg]

The big problem with ripping the former coach as being a worthless piece of shit who couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag is that you are setting up the new coach with little room to be succesful. You've basically said getting back to the level the former coach had us (which is yet to happen, still early) means that the new coach sucks just as much as the former coach. So good luck, Ray. You have to do better than any coach has ever done in our history before you will be deemed - slightly above average.

[smootness]

Bottom line with Stans is this. He should have accomplished a lot more than he did, given the talent and circumstances under which he coached. He continued to underachieve when it counted. End of story. For those of you who refuse to as acknowledge this, you are beyond help. Any decent coach would have taken that '04 team to sweet 16. And decent coach takes Stans last team to the tourney. Both of those debacles and many others were simply inexcusable.

This is where we go off the rails. I agree with those who believe it was time for Stans to go, but to act like he was a bad coach and should have done much more is crazy.

You have to give him credit for getting the talent. Sure, we may have underachieved some with the talent we had, but he is responsible for the whole thing so he gets credit for the talent accumulated. And that 2004 team did not underachieve overall. They did in the Tourney, but we legitimately ran into a buzzsaw that year. That team was great, and there's no way you can say anyone could have taken them to the Sweet 16 because they still would have had to deal with Xavier shooting absolutely lights out.

[MadDawg]

This is where we go off the rails. I agree with those who believe it was time for Stans to go, but to act like he was a bad coach and should have done much more is crazy.

You have to give him credit for getting the talent. Sure, we may have underachieved some with the talent we had, but he is responsible for the whole thing so he gets credit for the talent accumulated. And that 2004 team did not underachieve overall. They did in the Tourney, but we legitimately ran into a buzzsaw that year. That team was great, and there's no way you can say anyone could have taken them to the Sweet 16 because they still would have had to deal with Xavier shooting absolutely lights out.

C'mon smootness. Any church league coach would have beaten Xavier by 20+.

[drunkernhelldawg]

This is where we go off the rails. I agree with those who believe it was time for Stans to go, but to act like he was a bad coach and should have done much more is crazy.

You have to give him credit for getting the talent. Sure, we may have underachieved some with the talent we had, but he is responsible for the whole thing so he gets credit for the talent accumulated. And that 2004 team did not underachieve overall. They did in the Tourney, but we legitimately ran into a buzzsaw that year. That team was great, and there's no way you can say anyone could have taken them to the Sweet 16 because they still would have had to deal with Xavier shooting absolutely lights out.

What the hell you think you doing, putting that truth shit out here in public.

[engie]

There is no need in trying to prop up his history in the NCAA tournament. I've run the numbers before -- need I do it again? We are -- by over 10% in win percentage -- the best Big 6 team in the country to not have a Sweet 16 in the past 15 years. You don't get "unlucky" 15 times in a row. He was just not a good postseason coach. Plain and simple.

Stans was a good coach here. But gosh damn people -- when he's gone and the next guy inherits a total dumpster fire and is still cleaning up his mess -- he's not going to be initially remembered fondly with people ready to build statues. It's f'n ridiculous to ask that of the fanbase. Know who else wasn't initially remembered fondly? JACKIE. Time cures that -- and in time Stansbury will be approached the same way. With great admiration and love of the ENTIRE fanbase. But it's going to take a little while for people to get the taste from the end out of their mouths -- and constantly berating them for not being "over" it yet doesn't speed the process up a bit.

[smootness]

There is no need in trying to prop up his history in the NCAA tournament. I've run the numbers before -- need I do it again? We are -- by over 10% in win percentage -- the best Big 6 team in the country to not have a Sweet 16 in the past 15 years. You don't get "unlucky" 15 times in a row. He was just not a good postseason coach. Plain and simple.

Stans was a good coach here. But gosh damn people -- when he's gone and the next guy inherits a total dumpster fire and is still cleaning up his mess -- he's not going to be initially remembered fondly with people ready to build statues. It's f'n ridiculous to ask that of the fanbase. Know who else wasn't initially remembered fondly? JACKIE. Time cures that -- and in time Stansbury will be approached the same way. With great admiration and love of the ENTIRE fanbase. But it's going to take a little while for people to get the taste from the end out of their mouths -- and constantly berating them for not being "over" it yet doesn't speed the process up a bit.

Constantly berating people over the fact that Stans' tenure ended badly doesn't really speed the process up, either (I'm not directing that at you, btw). I don't think it's too much to ask that people not say, 'He was a terrible coach who never did anything good that we would have been better off without'. If you say that, you don't just have a bad taste in your mouth, you're a moron.

But my point all along has been that most of both sides really have about the same ultimate opinion of him, and I don't know why we can't just all agree with that, and it's basically what you said - he was a good coach here, but things turned sour and it was time for him to go.

And you're right, he was not a good NCAA Tournament coach, for whatever reason. But he was a fantastic SEC Tournament coach, which still counts as postseason. Why we had so much success in the SEC Tourney and none in the NCAA is a complete mystery that I'll never figure out.

Basically, I think both sides go too far - one in ignoring the way things ended and his last 3-5 years; and the other ignoring the success we had or trying to claim anyone could have done just as much. Both seem to be pretty clear facts, I just don't know why both sides are so insistent on being dum dums.

[maroonmania]

There is no need in trying to prop up his history in the NCAA tournament. I've run the numbers before -- need I do it again? We are -- by over 10% in win percentage -- the best Big 6 team in the country to not have a Sweet 16 in the past 15 years. You don't get "unlucky" 15 times in a row. He was just not a good postseason coach. Plain and simple.

Stans was a good coach here. But gosh damn people -- when he's gone and the next guy inherits a total dumpster fire and is still cleaning up his mess -- he's not going to be initially remembered fondly with people ready to build statues. It's f'n ridiculous to ask that of the fanbase. Know who else wasn't initially remembered fondly? JACKIE. Time cures that -- and in time Stansbury will be approached the same way. With great admiration and love of the ENTIRE fanbase. But it's going to take a little while for people to get the taste from the end out of their mouths -- and constantly berating them for not being "over" it yet doesn't speed the process up a bit.

And the ironic part of that is that he was pretty dang good in the SEC tourney. 2 tournament titles (should have been 3) along with another couple of championship appearances don't just happen by accident.

[Coach34]

26-4 in 2004, undefeated on the road in the regular season. Bye Bye.

Stans' teams also ran up against Duke in 2005 and Memphis in 2008. I can go on 4 eva.

So what? Post season matters a helluva lot. All 26-4 does is make him look worse for exiting the Tourney so early

And thank you for bringing up Duke and Memphis- because ya know- Stands ran into those teams before reaching the Sweet 16- that's what happens to 8-9 seeds

[TheDogFather]

moved....

[TheDogFather]

Get out of here with your bullshit. You started another thread with the intention of baiting and fanning the flames, I called you on it.

I can't help that you are wrong. Like Ron White said, "You can't fix stupid".

You and I can have a discussion about this when you bring something intelligent to the table. In the meantime, don't you and Rick Ray have some trophies to polish? Oh. wait.....

[engie]

In the meantime, don't you and Rick Ray have some trophies to polish? Oh. wait.....

Obviously you are putting the success of our current team ahead of your feelings and vendetta about the past**

[smootness]

So what? Post season matters a helluva lot. All 26-4 does is make him look worse for exiting the Tourney so early

I'll always disagree with this, and perhaps I view college basketball differently than some. But to me, postseason success is great. Obviously you get exposure, it's fun while it happens...but if you fall short of winning the national title, you just made it further than other teams but I don't view a 'Final 4' as an accomplishment to the scale of winning an SEC title, for instance.

I understand making a Final 4 may actually be more difficult, and it will definitely get you more exposure, but when I'm viewing a team and whether or not they met expectations, or taking a look at what they accomplished, I place more importance on regular season success than postseason success. You can get hot and win a few games in a tournament setting, and that's great. But I think what you do in the regular season is a better indicator of what kind of team you had.

Take 2000. UNC was ranked #1 in the country preseason. They struggled all year and got an 8 seed. Then they made a run to the Final 4. I don't view that season for them as, 'Hey, you made the Final 4, what a year! You got to where we expected you to get'. I view it as a disappointing year where a team finally played like they were capable of at the end. Had they won the national title, that would have changed...but the Final 4 doesn't overshadow their mediocre year to me.

And I'll also always say that I believe the 2004 team had a better year overall than the 1996 team. The 96 team won the SEC Tourney and made the Final 4 and at the end of the year was playing better than the 2004 team ever did. But the 2004 team lost 2 regular season games and won the SEC title. I think that team accomplished more than the 96 team did.

I know a lot will disagree with that, but that's my opinion. The regular season is the meat and potatoes, the postseason is the dessert...it's great if you make a run but ultimately if you don't win it all, you just lost later than everyone else.

[Coach34]

We'll just disagree there. That is true for football- but not basketball or baseball.

Basketball and baseball use the regular season to posture for postseason position.

Winning the SEC and then losing before the Sweet 16 or failing to make a Super Regional is just a colossal fail.

[Goat from MSU]

There is one thing we do not have to worry about in the next few years, we will not even sniff anywhere close to the Sweet 16
We'll just disagree there. That is true for football- but not basketball or baseball.

Basketball and baseball use the regular season to posture for postseason position.

Winning the SEC and then losing before the Sweet 16 or failing to make a Super Regional is just a colossal fail.

[TopDog58]

There is one thing we do not have to worry about in the next few years, we will not even sniff anywhere close to the Sweet 16

That's no big deal. We've had plenty of practice throughout the Bury regime. That's the whole point of the argument. Nice try though.

[TopDog58]

I'll always disagree with this, and perhaps I view college basketball differently than some. But to me, postseason success is great. Obviously you get exposure, it's fun while it happens...but if you fall short of winning the national title, you just made it further than other teams but I don't view a 'Final 4' as an accomplishment to the scale of winning an SEC title, for instance.

I understand making a Final 4 may actually be more difficult, and it will definitely get you more exposure, but when I'm viewing a team and whether or not they met expectations, or taking a look at what they accomplished, I place more importance on regular season success than postseason success. You can get hot and win a few games in a tournament setting, and that's great. But I think what you do in the regular season is a better indicator of what kind of team you had.

Take 2000. UNC was ranked #1 in the country preseason. They struggled all year and got an 8 seed. Then they made a run to the Final 4. I don't view that season for them as, 'Hey, you made the Final 4, what a year! You got to where we expected you to get'. I view it as a disappointing year where a team finally played like they were capable of at the end. Had they won the national title, that would have changed...but the Final 4 doesn't overshadow their mediocre year to me.

And I'll also always say that I believe the 2004 team had a better year overall than the 1996 team. The 96 team won the SEC Tourney and made the Final 4 and at the end of the year was playing better than the 2004 team ever did. But the 2004 team lost 2 regular season games and won the SEC title. I think that team accomplished more than the 96 team did.

I know a lot will disagree with that, but that's my opinion. The regular season is the meat and potatoes, the postseason is the dessert...it's great if you make a run but ultimately if you don't win it all, you just lost later than everyone else.

CBS doesn't spend billions for the NCAA regular season. A regular season conference title is nice for the fans of the program that wins it. Outside of that nobody cares. Hell that accomplishment doesn't even technically earn you a bid to the tourney. Although that's never going to happen in a power conference.

[RougeDawg]

Constantly berating people over the fact that Stans' tenure ended badly doesn't really speed the process up, either (I'm not directing that at you, btw). I don't think it's too much to ask that people not say, 'He was a terrible coach who never did anything good that we would have been better off without'. If you say that, you don't just have a bad taste in your mouth, you're a moron.

But my point all along has been that most of both sides really have about the same ultimate opinion of him, and I don't know why we can't just all agree with that, and it's basically what you said - he was a good coach here, but things turned sour and it was time for him to go.

And you're right, he was not a good NCAA Tournament coach, for whatever reason. But he was a fantastic SEC Tournament coach, which still counts as postseason. Why we had so much success in the SEC Tourney and none in the NCAA is a complete mystery that I'll never figure out.

Basically, I think both sides go too far - one in ignoring the way things ended and his last 3-5 years; and the other ignoring the success we had or trying to claim anyone could have done just as much. Both seem to be pretty clear facts, I just don't know why both sides are so insistent on being dum dums.

Could it possibly be that the SEC wasn't that great of a conference as a whole? Could it be that when it came NCAA time, the team that had been one of the better teams in a mediocre conference and played a weak OOC schedule, got bounced from the tourney early when facing stiff competition? Hmmm. Have you ever looked at it that way?

[TheDogFather]

Obviously you are putting the success of our current team ahead of your feelings and vendetta about the past**

No vendettas. And I couldn't care any less about Stansbury personally.

I do find it strange that you chose the more reasonable of the two in this debate to engage with some sort of point that is almost unintelligible. I assume, then, that you side with those that make immature comments in place of logical, intelligent responses?

[tcdog70]

I'll always disagree with this, and perhaps I view college basketball differently than some. But to me, postseason success is great. Obviously you get exposure, it's fun while it happens...but if you fall short of winning the national title, you just made it further than other teams but I don't view a 'Final 4' as an accomplishment to the scale of winning an SEC title, for instance.

I understand making a Final 4 may actually be more difficult, and it will definitely get you more exposure, but when I'm viewing a team and whether or not they met expectations, or taking a look at what they accomplished, I place more importance on regular season success than postseason success. You can get hot and win a few games in a tournament setting, and that's great. But I think what you do in the regular season is a better indicator of what kind of team you had.

Take 2000. UNC was ranked #1 in the country preseason. They struggled all year and got an 8 seed. Then they made a run to the Final 4. I don't view that season for them as, 'Hey, you made the Final 4, what a year! You got to where we expected you to get'. I view it as a disappointing year where a team finally played like they were capable of at the end. Had they won the national title, that would have changed...but the Final 4 doesn't overshadow their mediocre year to me.

And I'll also always say that I believe the 2004 team had a better year overall than the 1996 team. The 96 team won the SEC Tourney and made the Final 4 and at the end of the year was playing better than the 2004 team ever did. But the 2004 team lost 2 regular season games and won the SEC title. I think that team accomplished more than the 96 team did.

I know a lot will disagree with that, but that's my opinion. The regular season is the meat and potatoes, the postseason is the dessert...it's great if you make a run but ultimately if you don't win it all, you just lost later than everyone else.

Smoot, I think I agree with you on this. The regular season and fun at the Hump was more important to Me. The expectation that you might win the SEC or The SEC Tourney was something I looked forward to. Post season was always gravy. What I always liked about Stans was when the season started you always thought MSU could beat anybody.now it is a bummer because we are weak in a weak ass SEC.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Smoot, I think I agree with you on this. The regular season and fun at the Hump was more important to Me. The expectation that you might win the SEC or The SEC Tourney was something I looked forward to. Post season was always gravy. What I always led about Stans was when the season started you always thought MSU could beat anybody.now it is a bummer because we are weak in a weak ass SEC.

I agree too. I have never understood this idea that the regular season can be nothing. Those great games are the reason I love my team, not some short-lived recognition (though the bragging rights last longer) from a national audience. Still, we do want to get to the next level. Sure, we're fighting to get back where we were, but long-term, we have have chance to get beyond that. I like what Ray is doing for the most part. It's actually, however, going to take all of us if we're going to make The Hump special again. We can't stand back and jeer and expect success. Coach K himself would have a tough time with that.

[Dawg61]

My problem with all of this is people wanting the Stansbury posts to disappear. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. Those that don't remember history are bound to repeat it. 99.99% of all MSU fans have respect for Stansbury and all he did for our great University. Talking about him isn't meant to continually beat the man up. We do it because we care about our basketball program and all of us can continue to learn from the Stansbury era. That's a gift from Stansbury that we can CHOOSE to accept or ignore by eliminating discussion about him. When we or I talk about Stansbury it's to use what he showed us to make our current team and future team's better. Nothing more and nothing less. I will continue to talk Stansbury because we continue to learn from it/him. My advice is to try and stop being so sensitive about Stansbury posts. Again they aren't meant for harm they are meant as learning tools. 2c

[esplanade91]

I was really enjoying your post until you mentioned Bost as a bright spot. Bost did more to damage the program than anyone. In no way does he compare to Powers and Varnado.

I don't claim to have any inside info but Bost was and is one of my favorite players. He was pretty critical of Stans but find me a professional that hasn't said anything about his coach at one point or another.

To be honest, he seemed like he was the only one who gave a shit his final 2 years.

[engie]

No vendettas. And I couldn't care any less about Stansbury personally.
You sure do invest a lot of energy into taking up for the man...


I do find it strange that you chose the more reasonable of the two in this debate to engage with some sort of point that is almost unintelligible. I assume, then, that you side with those that make immature comments in place of logical, intelligent responses?
Ah -- the "holier than thou" approach after throwing gasoline on the fire in a shit storm over nothing. You don't want to go down that road with me.

The "intelligent" approach is to drop the bullshit and support the team. You are fighting a losing battle in that Coach ultimately ended up being right about Stans in the end -- and a whole bunch of you are having a ridiculously hard time accepting it.

Meanwhile, "your faction" gets in as many pot shots at our current coach as you possibly can -- thus sabotaging his success either intentionally or unintentionally -- while putting a former coach ahead of what is best for MSU as a whole. It's the exact baseball scenario playing itself out all over again.

I'm supporting the current team and current program -- and if I have to throw the former coach under the bus to help provide insight and optimism for the future, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to do that. The fact that you aren't says alot more about you than it does about me.

[ScoobaDawg]

I'm not reading all this crap. He is gone. He was a great man to the University but lacked discipline with his teams. He loves Mississippi State and I hope in time we can honor him. As someone who was close to the team when I was in school I loved Rick as a person but had big issues with him as a coach. But I supported him and made a lot of fun road trips to see some great games.

Now ray is turning things around and these players are fighting there assess off but the talent isn't there and I have no faith it will be with Ray. Great floor general but won't/can't play the game every other coach in the sec is playing

[drunkernhelldawg]

I'm not reading all this crap. He is gone. He was a great man to the University but lacked discipline with his teams. He loves Mississippi State and I hope in time we can honor him. As someone who was close to the team when I was in school I loved Rick as a person but had big issues with him as a coach. But I supported him and made a lot of fun road trips to see some great games.

Now ray is turning things around and these players are fighting there assess off but the talent isn't there and I have no faith it will be with Ray. Great floor general but won't/can't play the game every other coach in the sec is playing

Your last sentence is premature in that Ray may recruit differently than others, but he has to believe that whatever he is doing has a chance to work. I'd rather give him the leeway to let his style develop. Not a fan of the open either, but the rest of the post is exactly what I think. Said it well.

[Political Hack]

some of you are missing the point. this is not an argument about Stans. It's an argument about arguing over Stans.

Should we argue about arguing over the Stans argument?

[TheDogFather]

You sure do invest a lot of energy into taking up for the man...


Ah -- the "holier than thou" approach after throwing gasoline on the fire in a shit storm over nothing. You don't want to go down that road with me.

The "intelligent" approach is to drop the bullshit and support the team. You are fighting a losing battle in that Coach ultimately ended up being right about Stans in the end -- and a whole bunch of you are having a ridiculously hard time accepting it.

Meanwhile, "your faction" gets in as many pot shots at our current coach as you possibly can -- thus sabotaging his success either intentionally or unintentionally -- while putting a former coach ahead of what is best for MSU as a whole. It's the exact baseball scenario playing itself out all over again.

I'm supporting the current team and current program -- and if I have to throw the former coach under the bus to help provide insight and optimism for the future, I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to do that. The fact that you aren't says alot more about you than it does about me.

First, who in the hell are you, anyway? Don't want to go down that road? Is that a threat of some sort, or a sorry ass attempt to show message board prowess? Not sure you realize it, but hiding behind a username on a message board doesn't bring you any more credibility that a gnat on Rick Stansbury's ass. So you can save the bravado for somebody that gives a shit.

Unfortunately, for you, your obsession with being the "expert" is that you have let your emotions cloud any small amount of judgement you may have begun with. Supporting the team is exactly what this thread is about. So take your this bullshit, and enter into a conversation with someone else that gets a tickle out of your misguided criticisms. There you can spend your time coming up with more names for Stansbury.

Not once in this thread have I levied a criticism at Rick Ray. If you are referring to the remark about trophies, it was an insult thrown back at TopDog58 as a result of his childish remarks. So either you went off half cocked without informing yourself of the facts, or you are the "shit stirrer" in all of this.

[TheRef]

Well...this thread turned into a pissing match. Actually, here's a better representation of this thread.
http://firehousezen.com/files/2012/08/Dumpster-Fire.jpg