Frank Martin

[msstate7]

Why do you guys think a proven winner like frank Martin is failing at USCe in his 3rd year?

Are we underestimating how hard it is to completely rebuild an sec team these days?

I wonder if since there's a lack of refined HS basketball players in the southeast if that makes it harder to have quick turnarounds esp if you're mainly recruiting the southeast.

[Coach34]

Why do you guys think a proven winner like frank Martin is failing at USCe in his 3rd year?

Are we underestimating how hard it is to completely rebuild an sec team these days?

I wonder if since there's a lack of refined HS basketball players in the southeast if that makes it harder to have quick turnarounds esp if you're mainly recruiting the southeast.

Absolutely people are. It takes a special coach to win immediately. It takes everybody else multiple years.

Grant won at VCU and set up Shaka before leaving for Bama- now he is about to be fired
Calipari protege failed at Auburn
Pelphrey failed at UPig but is Donovan's right hand man
It's taken Mike Anderson 4 years to make the NCAA's this year and he inherited a top 5 recruiting class from Pel
Trent Johnson was so-so at LSU
Georgia's coach is struggling still to make them relevant

It's a different ballgame now than it used to be

[coastdoglover]

Keep on politicking

[MSUDawg4Life]

:D

The funniest thing about this entire endless debate is that Stans lovers seem to be so HURT. It's like their poor little hearts have been ripped out.

Poor things. I almost feel bad for them. Almost ....

[msstate7]

I'd like some of you guys who think replacing ray would automatically fix things to give an opinion on Martin. Previous to martin's arrival at USCe, he won at least 20 and got postseason every year. USCe is paying 2x what we pay ray and getting the same results. I remember a lot of jealousy from our fans over usce's hiring of Martin and them saying he was a homerun.

[HailState39110]

I'd like some of you guys who think replacing ray would automatically fix things to give an opinion on Martin. Previous to martin's arrival at USCe, he won at least 20 and got postseason every year. USCe is paying 2x what we pay ray and getting the same results. I remember a lot of jealousy from our fans over usce's hiring of Martin and them saying he was a homerun.

uSCe seems to be a coaching graveyard. Dave Odom won at Wake Forest, Eddie Fogler won at Vanderbilt, Darren Horn won at Western Kentucky , and Frank Martin won at Kansas St . None of them can win at South Carolina

[thf24]

I'm sure some among us will choose to take this as a defense of Ray and spew their usual vitrol, but really it's simply evidence that it's a lot harder and less certain than most people think to make a good basketball hire. A guy who's a perennial 20-game winner in one region and conference can go somewhere else at the same classification level and tank, owing to more factors than can be reasonably predicted and accounted for.

[LC Dawg]

I agree that it's harder to rebuild an SEC basketball program than some people want to admit and I also strongly agree that the lack of quality high school players in the southeast hurts quick turnarounds but I think there is a lot more involved in the USCe situation. I consider the USCe basketball job one of the least desirable jobs in the SEC. It's not that difficult to recruit for SEC football in ACC country but it's got to be a lot harder to recruit for SEC basketball IMO.

[bluelightstar]

:D

The funniest thing about this entire endless debate is that Stans lovers seem to be so HURT. It's like their poor little hearts have been ripped out.

Poor things. I almost feel bad for them. Almost ....

I'm far from a Stands lovers but 3 years of being completely irrelevant should be hurting everyone who's a State fan.

[smootness]

I'm sure some among us will choose to take this as a defense of Ray and spew their usual vitrol, but really it's simply evidence that it's a lot harder and less certain than most people think to make a good basketball hire. A guy who's a perennial 20-game winner in one region and conference can go somewhere else at the same classification level and tank, owing to more factors than can be reasonably predicted and accounted for.

And this is exactly why I wasn't against the Ray hire from the beginning, and why I still completely disagree with those who say, 'Stricklin botched the hire,' or, 'He should have taken more time and made a better hire,' etc.

Because what is a better hire? I laughed at those who said Frank Martin was a slam-dunk and that South Carolina would be doing what Kansas State did within 2-3 years. Outside of a very select few guys, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk hire in college basketball, especially in the SEC. There just isn't.

There are countless examples of guys who have had a lot of success elsewhere, both at mid-majors and in major conference programs, and coming to the SEC and having little to no success. Martin is just the latest one. There are also examples of guys who seemed like strange hires initially that did win.

Of course there were guys with better resumes than Ray, guys with more experience. Doesn't matter. You just have to think about what will make a coach successful at your school and try to hire the guy who best fits that criteria. If that was Ray for State, then great.

It's also why I still laugh when people throw out names of guys who definitely would have been more successful than Ray here. It's a joke; nobody knows a thing. Frank Martin would have done nothing more than Ray has.

[thedawg]

Winning is hard and fans get spoiled and come to expect it... Thats not a endorsement of Ray or an opposition to him... Its freaking hard to win in power five sports no matter how down you perceive the SEC to be...

[SaltyDawg]

South Carolina has never been relevant in basketball - I don't understand the comparison at all.

[thedawg]

The comparison is that they hired what was considered a slam dunk hire that could not conceivably fail and we hired a long shot... Programs were in similar places although we have had much worse luck and 3 years later we are about in the same spot

[SaltyDawg]

Right, they are in the same situation they've always been. We are not. Again, the comparison doesn't fit the narrative that is trying to be made.

[Johnson85]

Why do you guys think a proven winner like frank Martin is failing at USCe in his 3rd year?

He's recruiting for SEC basketball in ACC country. Basketball, even more than football, is dependent on recruiting if you want a turnaround in 3 years or less. It can be 'easy' if you get lucky and have a tie to a recruit that's a game changer. If you don't, it's hard to get the program off the ground. And there are just fewer game changing recruits in the Southeast than in less football crazy and more urban areas of the country.


Are we underestimating how hard it is to completely rebuild an sec team these days?

Yes. Give a good coach that is at least a solid recruiter 5 years, and I think you will see coaching ability dominate the results, as long as they can get off the ground in recruiting. If you don't pull in the right recruits right away, it's a slow process. You really have to get improvements each year and show enough by year 4 that you have credibility with recruits. The danger is that if you suck for 3 years, are recruits really going to trust that you can develop them and/or that you will be there to coach them period. In the first three years, if you really took over a bare cupboard, recruiting dominates the results (provided the coach is at least solid on the development and x's and o's).




I wonder if since there's a lack of refined HS basketball players in the southeast if that makes it harder to have quick turnarounds esp if you're mainly recruiting the southeast.

I think it has to. Any one great player, no matter the position, can have more impact and hide more weaknesses on a basketball court than a great QB can on the football field. Just like the SEC's recruiting grounds for DL make it so formidable in football, it's recruiting ground for basketball hurts it.

[smootness]

Right, they are in the same situation they've always been. We are not. Again, the comparison doesn't fit the narrative that is trying to be made.

The two coaches started with a similar mess, though ours was even worse. You're acting as though Ray stepped into 'Mississippi State, borderline NIT-NCAA Tournament team' while Martin stepped into 'South Carolina, trainwreck'.

They were both trainwrecks. Our history meant nothing for Ray given the team and program he inherited.

So they're absolutely comparable. They inherited similar situations, and Martin had the far superior track record and name recognition to sell. A ton of State fans found it embarrassing that South Carolina was able to get 'slam-dunk' Martin while we had to hire 'no-name' Ray. 3 years later, they've essentially accomplished the same thing, though we're now slightly ahead of SC.

It's not like we're comparing Duke with Clemson, either. We had a better run for the 20 years before Ray/Martin were hired, but not tons better. South Carolina had several years where they were really good.

[Goat from MSU]

I answer for you :
1.) They in ACC country it is a different world over there .He may have ridden the coattails of his former boss to get the SC job. I always wonder why he left K-State.
2.)It is hard to turn any program around, We should have done a better job on this hire.
3.) Ray coached at Purdue he should have gotten players out of the Indiana Ohio area, who were good . Is that not why we play him a million bucks.
Why do you guys think a proven winner like frank Martin is failing at USCe in his 3rd year?

Are we underestimating how hard it is to completely rebuild an sec team these days?

I wonder if since there's a lack of refined HS basketball players in the southeast if that makes it harder to have quick turnarounds esp if you're mainly recruiting the southeast.

[msstate7]

I answer for you :
1.) They in ACC country it is a different world over there .He may have ridden the coattails of his former boss to get the SC job. I always wonder why he left K-State.
2.)It is hard to turn any program around, We should have done a better job on this hire.
3.) Ray coached at Purdue he should have gotten players out of the Indiana Ohio area, who were good . Is that not why we play him a million bucks.

I like ray recruiting georgia. We're having success there now. Hopefully we land banks too

[SaltyDawg]

The two coaches started with a similar mess, though ours was even worse. You're acting as though Ray stepped into 'Mississippi State, borderline NIT-NCAA Tournament team' while Martin stepped into 'South Carolina, trainwreck'.

They were both trainwrecks. Our history meant nothing for Ray given the team and program he inherited.

So they're absolutely comparable. They inherited similar situations, and Martin had the far superior track record and name recognition to sell. A ton of State fans found it embarrassing that South Carolina was able to get 'slam-dunk' Martin while we had to hire 'no-name' Ray. 3 years later, they've essentially accomplished the same thing, though we're now slightly ahead of SC.

It's not like we're comparing Duke with Clemson, either. We had a better run for the 20 years before Ray/Martin were hired, but not tons better. South Carolina had several years where they were really good.

In the last 30 years, South Carolina has made the NCAA Tournament four times - all losing first round games - 1989, 1997, 1998, and 2004. Yeah, they were REALLY good.

No one ever said we were world beaters and have a Duke like history. But, historically South Carolina is a bad basketball program. We are not. It's been proven that you can win at MSU, that's the difference between us and USCe and why, IMO, not worth comparing.

[smootness]

Is that not why we play him a million bucks.

Anyone bringing this up as some kind of strike against Ray is simply showing their bias. That's less than anybody else in the SEC pays their coach. It's simply the bottom of the barrel for what you're going to pay a basketball coach in the SEC.

It's like pointing to the 12th man on an NBA team and saying, 'That guy gets paid a million dollars to do nothing?! I could sit on the bench, and they'd only have to pay me $100,000! And when he does come in, he shoots 40%?! FOR A MILLION DOLLARS?!'

[smootness]

In the last 30 years, South Carolina has made the NCAA Tournament four times - all losing first round games - 1989, 1997, 1998, and 2004. Yeah, they were REALLY good.

No one ever said we were world beaters and have a Duke like history. But, historically South Carolina is a bad basketball program. We are not. It's been proven that you can win at MSU, that's the difference between us and USCe and why, IMO, not worth comparing.

It's also not like we're a really good program historically, either. Yes, we have a better history in basketball than SC. No, it's not really a big enough difference to suggest that if you give two coaches the same starting point (and the SC coach has much better name recognition and a proven track record), that the State coach should put himself on top rather quickly.

Neither program has the kind of history that will sell itself. Kids aren't looking at State as a place to play because 20 years ago we went to a Final Four, or because over the last 15 years we went to the Tournament a little less than half the time.

[Coach34]

Uhhhh- SC's recruiting has been just fine according the Crootin rankings. Not sure where this "hard to recruit in ACC country" crap is coming in

[Goat from MSU]

I always wonder why Ray does not work Indiana and Ohio .He is from Ohio The players in those areas are more sound and solid than our AAU ones from down south.
I like ray recruiting georgia. We're having success there now. Hopefully we land banks too

[SaltyDawg]

Uhhhh- SC's recruiting has been just fine according the Crootin rankings. Not sure where this "hard to recruit in ACC country" crap is coming in

Crootin rankings are all that matters - always has been.

[smootness]

Crootin rankings are all that matters - always has been.

Well, when you're judging how easily a program is attracting talent, what better way is there to judge that? The guys rated higher according to rankings will also be the guys who are most sought-after. So if SC is attracting talent according to recruiting rankings, the 'program can't compete against ACC schools' argument doesn't really hold water.

[SaltyDawg]

It's also not like we're a really good program historically, either. Yes, we have a better history in basketball than SC. No, it's not really a big enough difference to suggest that if you give two coaches the same starting point (and the SC coach has much better name recognition and a proven track record), that the State coach should put himself on top rather quickly.

Neither program has the kind of history that will sell itself. Kids aren't looking at State as a place to play because 20 years ago we went to a Final Four, or because over the last 15 years we went to the Tournament a little less than half the time.

I'm not arguing the hiring of Ray or Martin. My original point was regardless of proven winner or unknown coach - the programs are different, the recruiting is different, they are not similar at all.

I still want to know when South Carolina had 'several really good teams' as you put it. I don't feel like looking it up right now, but I'm pretty sure every coach (maybe with 1 exception) that has gone to South Carolina has failed.

[SaltyDawg]

Well, when you're judging how easily a program is attracting talent, what better way is there to judge that? The guys rated higher according to rankings will also be the guys who are most sought-after. So if SC is attracting talent according to recruiting rankings, the 'program can't compete against ACC schools' argument doesn't really hold water.

I never made that argument. It's a more talent-rich area, the ACC can't pick up every higher rated player. I just love how crootin rankings don't matter until it's time to try and prove a point.

[Goat from MSU]

I do not have a bias ,I stated before I did not like the hire on this site . Yes we better and I can stomach watching them this year .I been to games this year and it is as bad as it was when I was at State during the Hatsfield and Boyd years.Maybe I am not giving him a chance or maybe I do not want to flush 2 more years down the totlet either.
Anyone bringing this up as some kind of strike against Ray is simply showing their bias. That's less than anybody else in the SEC pays their coach. It's simply the bottom of the barrel for what you're going to pay a basketball coach in the SEC.

It's like pointing to the 12th man on an NBA team and saying, 'That guy gets paid a million dollars to do nothing?! I could sit on the bench, and they'd only have to pay me $100,000! And when he does come in, he shoots 40%?! FOR A MILLION DOLLARS?!'

[Dawg61]

Frank Martin is certifiable. He is bat shit crazy and I'm sure the players just tune him out at this point. Imagine getting screamed at all day every day. It's a damn miracle not one player has punched him.

[smootness]

I never made that argument.

The person he was responding to did. So it was a valid point.

In regard to SC's really good teams, admittedly I overstated by saying 'several'. But they won the SEC title and were a 2 seed in 1997; they then were a 3 seed in 1998.

They did also make the Tournament in 2004, and they won the NIT in 05 and 06. Again, their program hasn't been as good as ours over the last 20 years, but it's not a huge gap. They've definitely had more bad teams, but they've at least had a couple of really good teams and were a bubble team several times.

[smootness]

Frank Martin is certifiable. He is bat shit crazy and I'm sure the players just tune him out at this point. Imagine getting screamed at all day every day. It's a damn miracle not one player has punched him.

You were the one touting that hire the most at the time.

[Dawg61]

You were the one touting that hire the most at the time.

What? Please find said posts. Frank Martin had I believe it was SIX players meet with the KSU AD and demand his firing or they all would transfer his last year at KSU. There was major trouble brewing at KSU when he jumped ship.

[smootness]

What? Please find said posts. Frank Martin had I believe it was SIX players meet with the KSU AD and demand his firing or they all would transfer his last year at KSU. There was major trouble brewing at KSU when he jumped ship.

I'm sorry; after looking back, it looks as though I was definitely wrong. It was others who threw his name out as proof we made a terrible hire. You were always against Martin.

Again, my bad.

[Dawg61]

I'm sorry; after looking back, it looks as though I was definitely wrong. It was others who threw his name out as proof we made a terrible hire. You were always against Martin.

Again, my bad.

Happens. Thanks for admitting the mistake.

[Political Hack]

Keep on politicking

it's asinine to me that anyone could support the shit show at the Hump right now after a decade plus of great basketball.

"It's hard" has somehow turned into "it's ok to suck for a really, really long time."

No. Just no... that's not ok.

[smootness]

it's asinine to me that anyone could support the shit show at the Hump right now after a decade plus of great basketball.

"It's hard" has somehow turned into "it's ok to suck for a really, really long time."

No. Just no... that's not ok.

There's literally not a single State fan who has said this or thinks this. Also, your definition of 'great basketball' is different from most. I would say we had about 3-4 years of great basketball, at least relative to State. Then we had close to a decade of 'ok to pretty good' basketball during which everyone was hoping we could get ourselves back to really good or great basketball.

[Political Hack]

There's literally not a single State fan who has said this or thinks this. Also, your definition of 'great basketball' is different from most. I would say we had about 3-4 years of great basketball, at least relative to State. Then we had close to a decade of 'ok to pretty good' basketball during which everyone was hoping we could get ourselves back to really good or great basketball.

anyone trying to justify what's going on in the Hump right now has lost their minds. It's happening here. Daily.

Everything is relative. A winning season would be "great" to me right now.

[Dawg61]

Something to consider about Martin is the head coach at KSU Bob Huggins who hired Martin. Huggins was only at KSU for a year but he was there long enough to sign Michael Beasley and Jacob Pullen along with about four other top 100 players. Huggins 2007 class was ranked #1 in the country by both Scout and Rivals. Then Huggins left for WVU and Martin took Beasley and KSU to the elite 8 his very first year. Frank Martin rode Huggins recruiting classes as long as he could but by the end KSU and all of the players were begging the AD for a new coach.

[smootness]

anyone trying to justify what's going on in the Hump right now has lost their minds. It's happening here. Daily.

Everything is relative. A winning season would be "great" to me right now.

I don't think anyone's justifying it in the sense of, 'What we have now is just fine.'

But as you said, everything is relative. The question is not, is this good enough? No one thinks it is. The question is, can Ray still turn it around? Most believe he can't, while some see the uptick in future recruiting classes and still think there's a chance he can. I don't think either side is unreasonable, but at this point, he's losing supporters by the game.

[Johnson85]

Uhhhh- SC's recruiting has been just fine according the Crootin rankings. Not sure where this "hard to recruit in ACC country" crap is coming in

I mentioned recruiting in ACC country to an SEC school, but I did not intend to imply that it's harder to recruit in USCe's area than in Mississippi. I think it's certainly easier but that USC doesn't get the advantage you would expect, just like GaTech doesn't get as big of an advantage in football recruiting from their location as you might think (and yes, I recognize that Ga Tech's current team makes that look like a weak argument to make).

[Political Hack]

I mentioned recruiting in ACC country to an SEC school, but I did not intend to imply that it's harder to recruit in USCe's area than in Mississippi. I think it's certainly easier but that USC doesn't get the advantage you would expect, just like GaTech doesn't get as big of an advantage in football recruiting from their location as you might think (and yes, I recognize that Ga Tech's current team makes that look like a weak argument to make).

When someone says "basketball" the states and areas that come to mind are: Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and Chicago. Cold weather pushes kids indoors to play rather than letting them play football or baseball outside for 8-10 months a year. It's natural that the cold weather states are going to develop more talent. ACC is brand that attracts the best of the best, just like SEC attracts the best football players. A lot of talent it is probably climate driven, but that would suggest that the BigTen should be better than the ACC, which isn't typically the case. ACC is 10-4 in the BigTen/ACC Challenge with two ties. That's pretty dominant, but I still don't think the ACC is getting their talent locally. Look at Duke's current roster and 8 of the 12 come from North Carolina or further north, including 3 from Chicago, Kansas, and Indiana.

[smootness]

When someone says "basketball" the states and areas that come to mind are: Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, and Chicago. Cold weather pushes kids indoors to play rather than letting them play football or baseball outside for 8-10 months a year. It's natural that the cold weather states are going to develop more talent. ACC is brand that attracts the best of the best, just like SEC attracts the best football players. A lot of talent it is probably climate driven, but that would suggest that the BigTen should be better than the ACC, which isn't typically the case. ACC is 10-4 in the BigTen/ACC Challenge with two ties. That's pretty dominant, but I still don't think the ACC is getting their talent locally. Look at Duke's current roster and 8 of the 12 come from North Carolina or further north, including 3 from Chicago, Kansas, and Indiana.

Those aren't the top talent-producing states, though. California, Texas, Georgia, and Florida produce as much, and in most cases more, talent than the states you mentioned. It's just a numbers game; the higher populations will always produce more.

Talent obviously isn't as concentrated in the South for basketball as it is for football, and you don't have to produce the sheer quantity in basketball that you do in football, but the more populated states will just about always produce more.

I do think there's obviously something to the idea that states like Mississippi and Alabama don't produce the kind of polished talent that other states do, but that's a different argument.

[tcdog70]

Well Gents--I was a Stans Lover-still am. A huge mistake firing Him. I've been watching SEC ball since the 60's. I saw State at the bottom of the SEC way before Stansbury arrived. I sure did like the Stans Years. Winning 20 games a year and thinking we could win every game we played was a fun time. We had Players that were super Fun to watch. I saw the Bama's Arkansas, Auburns, SC, Georgias, Vandys,and Yes the LSUs (who all have more money and better facilitates) try and try to hire Good Coaches and get back to the top. And in this time we Beat them all.Florida Ky and Tenn.had better records, but we we did have some success against them. The best part was whipping them dogassed Rebs. I know He is gone, I'm trying to think we will get back to the top of the SEC but I'm looking at how hard a time these other teams are having.. Why do we think we can? When you have a good thing, you better think long and hard before you throw it in the shitter.I am not going to duck and cover because I support Rick Stansbury. That doesn't Mean I can't support a New Coach. Hell I supported-Ron Greene-Richard Williams--and would love to have Williams back. I find it hard to support Rick Ray--there is nothing He does that makes me think He will ever get us back to where we were. Sure our teams have improved, but shit they had to,We were lower than whale shit.

[Coach34]

Tcdog comes thru again. No...just no.

Stands was let go because of the drama around the program. And since then- we don't have any drama. 100% upgrade over Stands. Now we just have to start winning some games

[smootness]

Well Gents--I was a Stans Lover-still am. A huge mistake firing Him. I've been watching SEC ball since the 60's. I saw State at the bottom of the SEC way before Stansbury arrived. I sure did like the Stans Years. Winning 20 games a year and thinking we could win every game we played was a fun time. We had Players that were super Fun to watch. I saw the Bama's Arkansas, Auburns, SC, Georgias, Vandys,and Yes the LSUs (who all have more money and better facilitates) try and try to hire Good Coaches and get back to the top. And in this time we Beat them all.Florida Ky and Tenn.had better records, but we we did have some success against them. The best part was whipping them dogassed Rebs. I know He is gone, I'm trying to think we will get back to the top of the SEC but I'm looking at how hard a time these other teams are having.. Why do we think we can? When you have a good thing, you better think long and hard before you throw it in the shitter.I am not going to duck and cover because I support Rick Stansbury. That doesn't Mean I can't support a New Coach. Hell I supported-Ron Greene-Richard Williams--and would love to have Williams back. I find it hard to support Rick Ray--there is nothing He does that makes me think He will ever get us back to where we were. Sure our teams have improved, but shit they had to,We were lower than whale shit.

And I was right there with you until Stans' last 2-3 years. The bottom line is, the program simply wasn't where it had been and was trending downward. If he couldn't get to the Tournament with the last team he had here, he wasn't getting back again. Period.

That team had so much talent, and they completely squandered it. Part of me wishes we had let Stans stick around to coach this Sword/Thomas/Ware group, because it wasn't going to be any better with him at the helm.

Well, let me clarify. We probably would have won a few more games each of the past couple of years because we would have kept Gray around and made some moves to continue to patch things up. But we would absolutely not have made the Tournament, and probably not the NIT either, these last couple of years no matter who the coach was.

Part of me wishes that had happened so we could have gotten everyone to see it. But ultimately, it would have simply prolonged this process and caused more harm.

[Political Hack]

Those aren't the top talent-producing states, though. California, Texas, Georgia, and Florida produce as much, and in most cases more, talent than the states you mentioned. It's just a numbers game; the higher populations will always produce more.

Talent obviously isn't as concentrated in the South for basketball as it is for football, and you don't have to produce the sheer quantity in basketball that you do in football, but the more populated states will just about always produce more.

I do think there's obviously something to the idea that states like Mississippi and Alabama don't produce the kind of polished talent that other states do, but that's a different argument.

MS and AL don't have the population concentration that states like FL, CA, and TX have... or even a GA or LA.

The per capita talent rate in Kentucky, Chicago, Indiana, and Kansas would crush any of those big states. That's why Duke has as many kids from IN (6.6M), KS (3M), and Chicago (2.7M) as they do from TX (27M), FL (20M), and CA (39M). So, Duke has as many roster spots dedicated to kids from areas with less than 13 million people as they do to kids from areas of roughly 86 million people. Bottom line is it's easier to find a stud in the high school post season tournaments in IN, KS, or Chicago than it is in TX, FL, or CA.

[smootness]

Per capita, you're right, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the quantity of talent in those states. No matter what the state, everyone knows who and where the best players are.

[tcdog70]

Tcdog comes thru again. No...just no.

Stands was let go because of the drama around the program. And since then- we don't have any drama. 100% upgrade over Stands. Now we just have to start winning some games

You are entitled to your Opinion, and you don't mind telling it. Although you have whiffing on your roundball opinions, go ahead. But I will take Drama and twenty wins with Players that are all-sec than having a team that is in the Bottom of the SEC and almost last in every stat in D1-plus the Hump sound like King Tuts tomb every game. I enjoy seeing a good inbounds play every once in a while. I talked to Billy Donavon in an Airport (Atlanta) I had on a MSU cap. He told Me Stans had the toughest job in the SEC and was doing a great Job. He said besides Rupp that The Hump was the hardest place to Play. No Drama=Shitty team or Drama=Top of the SEC---gee wonder what I want.

[smootness]

No Drama=Shitty team or Drama=Top of the SEC---gee wonder what I want.

First, you can have both.

Second, we didn't have drama and a team atop the SEC. We had loads and loads of drama and a mediocre team that was an NIT flameout and was maddeningly inconsistent.

Obviously an NIT team is better than winning 13 games. The move wasn't made to win 13 games. The move was made because our new cap was barely squeaking into the NIT and trending downward.

We hadn't been a team that challenged for the SEC in almost a decade when we got rid of Stans. That's a false narrative.

[tcdog70]

First, you can have both.

Second, we didn't have drama and a team atop the SEC. We had loads and loads of drama and a mediocre team that was an NIT flameout and was maddeningly inconsistent.

Obviously an NIT team is better than winning 13 games. The move wasn't made to win 13 games. The move was made because our new cap was barely squeaking into the NIT and trending downward.

We hadn't been a team that challenged for the SEC in almost a decade when we got rid of Stans. That's a false narrative.

Smoot that team was ranked most of the season. We had a 7 point lead on Ky in the second half and KY mugged Hood and injured Him. He was injured from then on. We weren't that deep. Then Moultrie gets injured at LSU. So if injuries are a big excuse for Ray, then losing Hood and having Moultrie hurt wasn't Stans fault. Hood, Dee and Moultrie played over 30 minutes a game.Coach 34 was crying about Ready playing 25 minutes, he was worried he would be tired. So go ahead and believe we are on the right track with Ray, I will believe we would be in the top of the SEC if we had kept Stans.

[smootness]

Smoot that team was ranked most of the season. We had a 7 point lead on Ky in the second half and KY mugged Hood and injured Him. He was injured from then on. We weren't that deep. Then Moultrie gets injured at LSU. So if injuries are a big excuse for Ray, then losing Hood and having Moultrie hurt wasn't Stans fault. Hood, Dee and Moultrie played over 30 minutes a game.Coach 34 was crying about Ready playing 25 minutes, he was worried he would be tired. So go ahead and believe we are on the right track with Ray, I will believe we would be in the top of the SEC if we had kept Stans.

Do not try to make excuses for that team. Stans' best players always played a ton of minutes. And Hood and Moultrie went down for very limited amounts of time. The only reason people mention injuries under Ray is because he lost multiple players for entire seasons.

Yes, we were ranked because we played well in the non-conference outside of the Akron lost and beat Texas A&M and Arizona. I don't care what the team was ranked at one point. We won our last 2 SEC games to finish 8-8...in the SEC...with that talent.

Then we lost to piece of crap UGA our first game in the SEC Tourney and lost a home game to UMass as a 4 seed in the NIT.

That season was complete garbage, period. And again, that's as good as it was going to get because we weren't about to amass that kind of talent again anytime soon.

I don't care what people say about Ray. That's a different discussion than whether or not Stans had to go. You're just about the only one arguing he didn't have to. His results at the end of his tenure were laughable given what he had to work with...and on top of that, we were embarrassing.

[Coach34]

First, you can have both.

Second, we didn't have drama and a team atop the SEC. We had loads and loads of drama and a mediocre team that was an NIT flameout and was maddeningly inconsistent.
We hadn't been a team that challenged for the SEC in almost a decade when we got rid of Stans. That's a false narrative.

Exactly- I think we finished higher than 5th in the SEC once in his last 7 years. Winning the West was good enough for 5th best record in the SEC a couple of times. We werent close to being a top SEC team his last 7 years- we were 5th or 6th behind Kentucky, Fla, Tenn, and Vandy- maybe LSU considering their Final Four and 2 SEC titles

[mic]

Exactly- I think we finished higher than 5th in the SEC once in his last 7 years. Winning the West was good enough for 5th best record in the SEC a couple of times. We werent close to being a top SEC team his last 7 years- we were 5th or 6th behind Kentucky, Fla, Tenn, and Vandy- maybe LSU considering their Final Four and 2 SEC titles

Same reason only ONE coach voted against the new realignment ..

[Coach34]

Same reason only ONE coach voted against the new realignment ..

and BINGO was his name-o