Women's bb team up to #5 in coaches poll. What Vic has done this season is

[99jc]

Remarkable. He is without a doubt the best coach in MSU history any sport.

[Coach34]

Vic is the best recruiter we have ever had. His teams are loaded with talent. We have a 5-star struggling to get playing time.

Polk is the best coach we have had. He lacked some in recruiting- he never won a title because he was never able to put together a complete pitching staff. Vic will probably win a title because he is a top 5 in the country recruiter

[99jc]

Recruiting does not mean you win a title coaching does you of all people should know that. Howland and Moorhead both had great talent but can't coach worth a damn especially Moorhead.

[Coach34]

Recruiting does not mean you win a title coaching does you of all people should know that. Howland and Moorhead both had great talent but can't coach worth a damn especially Moorhead.

Vic is a good coach. But being a top 5 recruiter is why we are where we are. He got outcoached vs Notre Dame that cost us a title. Great coaches dont blow a 15 point lead in the title game. He may end up the most successful coach in Starkville- and its no doubt because he is an elite recruiter. We recruit top 5- and we remain top 5.

Howland is underachieving and Moorhead was awful. Mullen is a better coach than Vic- Mullen overachieved based on talent. Vic is just living up to his recruiting standards

[DownwardDawg]

Mn

[TXDawg]

Vic is a good coach. But being a top 5 recruiter is why we are where we are. He got outcoached vs Notre Dame that cost us a title. Great coaches dont blow a 15 point lead in the title game. He may end up the most successful coach in Starkville- and its no doubt because he is an elite recruiter. We recruit top 5- and we remain top 5.

Howland is underachieving and Moorhead was awful. Mullen is a better coach than Vic- Mullen overachieved based on talent. Vic is just living up to his recruiting standards

You’re out of your mind....

[DownwardDawg]

You’re out of your mind....

I laughed hard at that one n

[Coach34]

Larry Coker won back to back NC's- good coach. Why didnt he sustain? Poor recruiter.

Mullen coached above his talent level. Vic coaches to his talent level. We are in no way exceeding our talent level in girls basketball. We are top 5 in the country in talent. We signed the best player in the country. We have a 5-star sitting on the bench. OM best player transferred and struggles for minutes. We have a 5-star sitting out that transferred in to play next season. Vic has one of the best rosters in the country year in and year out. He is right where he is supposed to be

[Dawg2003]

Vic coached above his talent level before he could get a roster full of 5 stars. That 2018 team won games against Baylor and UConn who had more talent. He's developed some 3 stars into All-SEC talent.

That Notre Dame team we lost to had more talent than us and was also a lot bigger than us.

[KOdawg1]

Vic and Polk are 1a and 1b in terms of our all time best coach. I suspect Vic will pass him as far as accomplishments go by the time it's all said and done.

We can debate who's better all night long, but both of these coaches are motivators on top of being good coaches. You can have talent, and you can have X's and O's, but the mark of a great coach is the ability to motivate players to be the best they can be. Both of these coaches have that trait and we're fortunate that they've been a part of our university

[99jc]

Vic coached above his talent level before he could get a roster full of 5 stars. That 2018 team won games against Baylor and UConn who had more talent. He's developed some 3 stars into All-SEC talent.

That Notre Dame team we lost to had more talent than us and was also a lot bigger than us.

This post is fact...nothing c34 can say to dispute!

[dawgday166]

Vic is a good coach. But being a top 5 recruiter is why we are where we are. He got outcoached vs Notre Dame that cost us a title. Great coaches dont blow a 15 point lead in the title game. He may end up the most successful coach in Starkville- and its no doubt because he is an elite recruiter. We recruit top 5- and we remain top 5.

Howland is underachieving and Moorhead was awful. Mullen is a better coach than Vic- Mullen overachieved based on talent. Vic is just living up to his recruiting standards

Vic is recruiting well now. He built this program tho with lesser recruits. Not many 4 stars on the 1st Natty runner-up that upset UConn or the next year Natty runners up either. Vic has not coached Natty games well tho, you right about that. Upsetting UConn tho is arguably the biggest upset in MSU history. And the stretch we went thru to get to title game was very stout that 1st year we were runner-up.

Polk never finished higher than 3rd in Omaha and yes, I know Morgan got hit on the foot with line drive against Texas but still we were the best team there too. After that LSU started dominating SEC baseball.

Mullen ... he's damn good coach but we should've beat Bama twice with him as coach and just flat didn't. Should've won SEC in 2014. So he "choked" too. But you right about him winning with lesser recruited talent. He's about as good a player developer as there is.

I think Vic is up there. And once an MSU team gets to title game ... that's a lot of burden and expectations to be the 1st to possibly win us a Natty. Will admit tho that he should have at least one.

[Skydawg1]

That Notre Dame team we lost to had more talent than us and was also a lot bigger than us.We lost that natty due to coaching.

[Santiago]

At Madison Hayes Game tonight , during presentation of her McDonalds AA framed Jersey, the announcer said MSU currently ranked 6th.... and I saw Vic swing an arm behind his back with 5 fingers, and held it back there so the announcer would correct himself. Heck yeah ! Get it right, and Vic going to tell you.

[Dawg2003]

This post is fact...nothing c34 can say to dispute!

I agree, but Notre Dame had more talent than us.

[ArrowDawg]

We lost that natty due to coaching.

ND lost about four players to season ending injuries that year, and we were dominating them. We flat-out choked the game away, and it amazes me that some are making excuses for it. I love Vic, and he's easily one of the best recruiters/coaches to ever coach any sport at MSU, but he blew the title that year. What really sux is knowing that there's no guarantee we'll ever get another shot at a national title.

[Cowbell]

Larry Coker won back to back NC's- good coach. Why didnt he sustain? Poor recruiter.

Mullen coached above his talent level. Vic coaches to his talent level. We are in no way exceeding our talent level in girls basketball. We are top 5 in the country in talent. We signed the best player in the country. We have a 5-star sitting on the bench. OM best player transferred and struggles for minutes. We have a 5-star sitting out that transferred in to play next season. Vic has one of the best rosters in the country year in and year out. He is right where he is supposed to be

Holloway up the middle says hi. As does Maine and all the late season games where he quit coaching. I agree with you a lot but you have to remember Vic had this team good before he had the top recruits in play. This is just a terrible take.

[BhamDawg205]

Vic is a good coach. But being a top 5 recruiter is why we are where we are. He got outcoached vs Notre Dame that cost us a title. Great coaches dont blow a 15 point lead in the title game. He may end up the most successful coach in Starkville- and its no doubt because he is an elite recruiter. We recruit top 5- and we remain top 5.

Howland is underachieving and Moorhead was awful. Mullen is a better coach than Vic- Mullen overachieved based on talent. Vic is just living up to his recruiting standards

1. Vic
2. Polk
3. Mullen

Vic built a program that had no foundation. Multiple natty appearances. This year regardless of talent, is young, and doing way better than most predicted.

Polk history is well recorded built it and almost destroyed it. But he did leave a blueprint to continue MSU baseball standards. And Mississippi and the South is stocked with talent with MSU as top 5 in their list. Similar to Bama in football

Mullen to over a program not used to winning consistently. He won the games he was supposed to and disappeared every time he played Bama, even when we had a better than good chance of competing or winning. He played not to get blower out. And when he had a good season, he was job hunting. As far as coaching above talent... How much of that was recruiting sites undervalued MS kids or just because they Chose MSU? Maybe was just better at evaluating talent than 24\7. With that said he left our program better than he found it.

[GeoDawg]

At Madison Hayes Game tonight , during presentation of her McDonalds AA framed Jersey, the announcer said MSU currently ranked 6th.... and I saw Vic swing an arm behind his back with 5 fingers, and held it back there so the announcer would correct himself. Heck yeah ! Get it right, and Vic going to tell you.

And NC State lost to Louisville last night. So if we win Sunday at UK, there is a chance we could move to #4 next week. I know the number of quality teams in the Women's game is far less than the Men's, but to think we have the potential to end up 1 or 2 seed this year after losing 4 of 5 starters is freaking amazing to me. We finished the Texas A&M game with two freshman and three sophomores on the floor. Think about that. Do you think Vic has a shot at Coach of the Year again? It will probably go to Staley but Vic should get strong consideration.

[OLJWales]

That 4th vs A&M was unbelievable. I don't think anybody could of beat us in that final Q. And what's exciting about that is it was the last Q the team's played. Who knows?

[smootness]

LOL on the idea that we have as much talent as anyone.

South Carolina has more talent than we do. UConn has more talent. Baylor has more talent. Notre Dame has more talent. Louisville has more talent. Stanford has more talent. Maryland has more talent. You could make a strong case that Tennessee and Texas have more talent. Oregon and UCLA are now recruiting as well as anyone. Arizona and Ohio State recruit at least at the level we do. What we have is a better coach than just about all of them, with the possible exception of UConn.

Schaefer does recruit well, and it is getting stronger. He is finally starting to land some truly elite players with consistency. But there are several programs who only recruit elite players. And our recruiting followed our success, not the other way around.

Regardless of any of that, 'coach' at the college level encompasses it all. And no one has taken less and turned it into more at Mississippi State. Schaefer is the best coach we have ever had in any sport. And I really don't think it's that close.

[AROB44]

Vic is the best recruiter we have ever had. His teams are loaded with talent. We have a 5-star struggling to get playing time.

Polk is the best coach we have had. He lacked some in recruiting- he never won a title because he was never able to put together a complete pitching staff. Vic will probably win a title because he is a top 5 in the country recruiter

Babe McCarthy was the best coach we have ever had....

[dawgman]

Hard to argue against McCarthy with 4 SEC championships in 5 years from 1959 and 1963 in a league that included Adolph Rupp. Allyn McKeen must also be given consideration

[OLJWales]

We've had a few that turned programs around that were/are great at their jobs. I think JWS needs to be on the list as well. I still think a lot of our present day football foundation was built by him.

To difficult for me to rank them though other than I think Vic belongs at the top.

[dawgman]

Also to think about; what if we had kept the coaches that went on to win 7 national championships in football after leaving Mississippi State

[TXDawg]

We lost that natty due to coaching.

No, we lost that natty due to officiating and a 3-point prayer...

[Liverpooldawg]

Vic is a good coach. But being a top 5 recruiter is why we are where we are. He got outcoached vs Notre Dame that cost us a title. Great coaches dont blow a 15 point lead in the title game. He may end up the most successful coach in Starkville- and its no doubt because he is an elite recruiter. We recruit top 5- and we remain top 5.

Howland is underachieving and Moorhead was awful. Mullen is a better coach than Vic- Mullen overachieved based on talent. Vic is just living up to his recruiting standards
I agree with most of that, but recruiting is part of being a good coach on the college level.

[dawgs]

Recruiting does not mean you win a title coaching does you of all people should know that. Howland and Moorhead both had great talent but can't coach worth a damn especially Moorhead.

The level of talent Moorhead and Howland have/had relative the blue blood programs is nowhere near the level Vic has. Calling a college coach an elite recruiter is not bashing them it's huge praise considering how important recruiting is to college coaching success.

[OLJWales]

Delete

[OLJWales]

Also to think about; what if we had kept the coaches that went on to win 7 national championships in football after leaving Mississippi State

Who besides Darryl Royal?

[R2Dawg]

You?re out of your mind....

Yep, 34 do you know how many games Mullen lost and nearly lost by blowing leads? Mullen's record vs top 25? Vic can coach circles around Mullen. Mullen is a good coach, but he ain't no Vic.

[R2Dawg]

LOL on the idea that we have as much talent as anyone.

South Carolina has more talent than we do. UConn has more talent. Baylor has more talent. Notre Dame has more talent. Louisville has more talent. Stanford has more talent. Maryland has more talent. You could make a strong case that Tennessee and Texas have more talent. Oregon and UCLA are now recruiting as well as anyone. Arizona and Ohio State recruit at least at the level we do. What we have is a better coach than just about all of them, with the possible exception of UConn.

Schaefer does recruit well, and it is getting stronger. He is finally starting to land some truly elite players with consistency. But there are several programs who only recruit elite players. And our recruiting followed our success, not the other way around.

Regardless of any of that, 'coach' at the college level encompasses it all. And no one has taken less and turned it into more at Mississippi State. Schaefer is the best coach we have ever had in any sport. And I really don't think it's that close.

Yep, we beat UT recently, maybe last year by like 30. We had 0 Mcdonalds AA and UT had like 7-8. Vic can coach. He took two teams with 0 MAA to NC game. Anyone else done that in WBB?

[msbulldog]

Who besides Darryl Royal?

Murray Warmath, 1 natty at Minnesota.

[dawgman]

Murray Warmath, 1 natty at Minnesota.

Bernie Bierman with 5 at Minnesota

[dawgday166]

I agree with most of that, but recruiting is part of being a good coach on the college level.

Until Mullen beats Smart or Saban, I can't classify him as a better coach. Vic has at least one win against all the top coaches in Women's Hoops with maybe the exception of the ND coach. And beating Geno's team in '16 is above even beating Saban in football IMO.

[pilldawg]

Vic didn?t have a single McDonald?s All American until this year. That National Championship team was built with good talent and better development. He is just now starting to get elite talent.

[Ari Gold]

Recruiting does not mean you win a title coaching does you of all people should know that. Howland and Moorhead both had great talent but can't coach worth a damn especially Moorhead.

Ben has been to 3 final fours.. saying Ben cant coach shows your ignorance...

[99jc]

The 17er can't coach anymore he is a has been...and your ignorance shows now I wasn't talking about the past.

[Ari Gold]

Vic is an elite Women’s basketball coach no doubt..
But it’s not like we are rolling 5 freshman out there
Carter -Soph
Mya - RS soph
Danberry 6th year Sr
Bibby - Jr
Jackson - fr

Wiggins - so
Morris - juco Jr
Espinoza - jr
And the 2 true freshman

That’s far from a young team

[99jc]

Vic is an elite Women’s basketball coach no doubt..
But it’s not like we are rolling 5 freshman out there
Carter -Soph
Mya - RS soph
Danberry 6th year Sr
Bibby - Jr
Jackson - fr

Wiggins - so
Morris - juco Jr
Espinoza - jr
And the 2 true freshman

That’s far from a young team

Vic is constantly stating this is a young team i tend to believe he knows what the hell he is talking about.

[smootness]

Vic is an elite Women?s basketball coach no doubt..
But it?s not like we are rolling 5 freshman out there
Carter -Soph
Mya - RS soph
Danberry 6th year Sr
Bibby - Jr
Jackson - fr

Wiggins - so
Morris - juco Jr
Espinoza - jr
And the 2 true freshman

That?s far from a young team

This is absolutely a young team. We have 2 major contributors who won't be around 2 years from now. And one of them is still hobbled.

[Ari Gold]

This is absolutely a young team. We have 2 major contributors who won't be around 2 years from now. And one of them is still hobbled.


I never said it was a veteran team. But having a 6th year Sr , a Soph, Rs Soph , and jr isn’t young. Yeah maybe they are young in game minutes ..

and again it’s women’s hoops.. it’s a totally different game .. you know when you are recruiting you will be getting them for 4 years unless they transfer... it’s a lot easier to build your roster and X and Os when you have that luxury.

Once again no knock on Vic.. he is an elite coach and one of Top 5 in women’s hoops.
Let’s just pump the brakes a little... it’s womens hoops..

[jdelta02]

Miss State women's basketball team is listed as #8 in the nation (NCAA Div 1) in forced turnovers per game. Forcing turnovers, getting out in transition, scoring off of turnovers.....big keys with this team. Even South Carolina was hard pressed to stay with this team under the heavy pressure and in transition game.

Again.....
Miss. State Women
#8 in NCAA Division 1 Women's Basketball in forced turnovers (21.84 per game).

[Quaoarsking]

Danberry is a FIFTH year senior. She graduated high school in 2015.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

We are a young team. You would expect more contributions from your older players. But let's check our roster.

Points
63.4% scored by freshmen and sophomores

Rebounds
67.4% from freshmen and sophomores

Assists
66.8% from freshmen and sophomores

Steals
59.5% from freshmen and sophomores

Blocks
73.7% from freshmen and sophomores

Minutes
64.4% from freshmen and sophomores

So our youngest 2 classes are outperforming our oldest two classes by a 2:1 ratio. Anyone who says we aren't a young team is an idiot.

[smootness]

and again it?s women?s hoops.. it?s a totally different game .. you know when you are recruiting you will be getting them for 4 years unless they transfer...

This is precisely why 3 of your 5 starters (and 6 of your top 9 contributors) being freshmen and sophomores is absolutely a young team.

[Captain Falcon]

I never said it was a veteran team. But having a 6th year Sr , a Soph, Rs Soph , and jr isn?t young. Yeah maybe they are young in game minutes ..

and again it?s women?s hoops.. it?s a totally different game .. you know when you are recruiting you will be getting them for 4 years unless they transfer... it?s a lot easier to build your roster and X and Os when you have that luxury.

Once again no knock on Vic.. he is an elite coach and one of Top 5 in women?s hoops.
Let?s just pump the brakes a little... it?s womens hoops..


Sorry you?re just wrong on this. Especially when you compare this group to how experienced the last three teams were. It?s absolutely a very young team. We have 12 active players and 8 are freshmen or sophomores and only one is a senior.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

This is precisely why 3 of your 5 starters (and 6 of your top 9 contributors) being freshmen and sophomores is absolutely a young team.

Does this count for the men too? 3 out of 5 starters underclassmen.

[KOdawg1]

it's womens hoops..

Okay and?

[smootness]

Does this count for the men too? 3 out of 5 starters underclassmen.

Not exactly, which is why that quote was in response to the specifics of women's basketball.

One of our sophomores is almost certainly leaving after this year, and another could. Our junior PG could decide to just leave, regardless of the NBA. Someone could easily transfer.

These things happen far more often in men's basketball than in women's. Our men's team is technically young, but as it relates to the sport, it will likely look quite a bit different next year, so this year is more important. In women's basketball, our team is both technically young and also young as it relates to the sport. So it should continue to improve relative to its competition over the next couple years. So this year can be seen as the ground floor, whereas in men's it is potentially more of a peak.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

I have no idea if it?s more or less common than the men?s game but MSU has had 2 or 3 in Vic?s tenure. I wouldn?t be surprised if this was the same for the top teams.

The only players gone for sure are carter and probably Perry. I would expect the rest back next season. If anyone does transfer it?s probably because they are tired of playing in front of an arena that?s a quarter full.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

A few things to address in this thread:

You can have a young men's team (kentucky and duke come to mind) and it be a very different situation than the women. Because in the men's game, those 2 teams mentioned will never become a veteran team because they have too many early entries to the NBA. You don't have that in the women's game. In the women's game, great freshmen do become great seniors. In the men's game, great freshmen become early entries into the NBA. So comparing young men's teams to young women's teams is not a good comparison.

Also, I do expect some transfers from our program. But it is generally those lacking playing time that leave, not the big contributors. Most players leave in search of more playing time.

[maroonmania]

Not exactly, which is why that quote was in response to the specifics of women's basketball.

One of our sophomores is almost certainly leaving after this year, and another could. Our junior PG could decide to just leave, regardless of the NBA. Someone could easily transfer.

These things happen far more often in men's basketball than in women's. Our men's team is technically young, but as it relates to the sport, it will likely look quite a bit different next year, so this year is more important. In women's basketball, our team is both technically young and also young as it relates to the sport. So it should continue to improve relative to its competition over the next couple years. So this year can be seen as the ground floor, whereas in men's it is potentially more of a peak.

Yep, you never know. We lost Breamber Scott from last year and I'm starting to think we could have really used her. Plus she would have been one of our best 3 point shooters this year.

[Ari Gold]

Does this count for the men too? 3 out of 5 starters underclassmen.

Boom .. there’s what I was going for. Glad to see someone figured out what I was doing there

[smootness]

I have no idea if it?s more or less common than the men?s game but MSU has had 2 or 3 in Vic?s tenure. I wouldn?t be surprised if this was the same for the top teams.

The only players gone for sure are carter and probably Perry. I would expect the rest back next season. If anyone does transfer it?s probably because they are tired of playing in front of an arena that?s a quarter full.

Schaefer is ahead of the curve in taking transfers in women's basketball. It's definitely not as common as in men's.

And exactly, we will likely lose Perry this year...who happens to be clearly our best player. So instead of him being a sophomore, for the purposes of how 'young' we are, you should consider him a senior. And you should probably consider Woodard a junior. So instead of starting a junior, senior, sophomore, sophomore, junior (which is technically young but still not as young as our women's team), you could basically think of it as being junior, senior, junior, senior, junior in terms of how long we're likely to have them. So yeah....not a young team. And even then, our PG could always leave. The one we had last year did.

[smootness]

Boom .. there’s what I was going for. Glad to see someone figured out what I was doing there

Then you did a terrible job of it. Because you cited the specifics of women's basketball that explain why our men's team is definitely not as young as our women's team...aside from the fact that our men's team isn't even technically as young as our women's team. You highlighted the argument against your stance.

If Rickea Jackson were likely to leave after this year, there would be far less talk about how young we are.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

Of good to great upper class men on men?s basketball that develop over time. Comparing MSU to Kentucky and Duke is meaningless. We are never going to be them, period. Our fans shit on the men and give every benefit of the doubt to the women. Both teams are young, but that somehow doesn?t matter for the women and Vic, who by the way lost to a much lower ranked team in both the polls and player talent. They should have hustled more, or maybe the game has passed Vic by...who knows.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

Schaefer is ahead of the curve in taking transfers in women's basketball. It's definitely not as common as in men's.

And exactly, we will likely lose Perry this year...who happens to be clearly our best player. So instead of him being a sophomore, for the purposes of how 'young' we are, you should consider him a senior. And you should probably consider Woodard a junior. So instead of starting a junior, senior, sophomore, sophomore, junior (which is technically young but still not as young as our women's team), you could basically think of it as being junior, senior, junior, senior, junior in terms of how long we're likely to have them. So yeah....not a young team. And even then, our PG could always leave. The one we had last year did.

What are you talking about. Perry and Woodard have been playing basketball above a high school/ AAU level for one and a half years. NO DIFFERENT than the women sophomores. The simple fact that there is an actually demand for talented to players to leave for the pros as opposed to the women doesn?t somehow magically change their age.

[smootness]

What are you talking about. Perry and Woodard have been playing basketball above a high school/ AAU level for one and a half years. NO DIFFERENT than the women sophomores. The simple fact that there is an actually demand for talented to players to leave for the pros as opposed to the women doesn?t somehow magically change their age.

Because when people talk about how young a team is as a reason for fans to chill when criticizing, it's because over time, at least some of those problems will go away as the team gains more experience. Well, that is certainly more true for the women's team than for the men's team because the men's team won't be around as long. Also, the better teams we compete against on the men's side typically are also younger on average, since men don't stick around as long as women at the top. So a top women's team is likely to be older, on average, than a top men's team. So youth is more likely to be a legitimate excuse in women's basketball than men's. It's not that difficult.

[smootness]

Of good to great upper class men on men?s basketball that develop over time. Comparing MSU to Kentucky and Duke is meaningless. We are never going to be them, period. Our fans shit on the men and give every benefit of the doubt to the women. Both teams are young, but that somehow doesn?t matter for the women and Vic, who by the way lost to a much lower ranked team in both the polls and player talent. They should have hustled more, or maybe the game has passed Vic by...who knows.

It you really need me to spell out the difference in the two, then here goes.

First, our women's team, while young, will still be top 10 in the country after a loss. Our men's team, while 'young', is fighting to try to make the NCAA Tournament.

Second, our women's coach has made two national championship games in the last 3 years with this program. Doubting or questioning him seems extremely asinine. The same is not true of our men's coach. He has had success in the past, but it has been a long time, and he hasn't done it here.

Third, as I talked about in my last post, youth in the two sports isn't equivalent. 4 of our top 7 men's players are in their 1st or 2nd year (3 of those in their 2nd). The same is true of 6 of UK's top 8 players; 4 of LSU's top 5 players; 4 of OM's top 6 contributors; and 2 of Bama's top 3, 3 of their top 7. Auburn is a veteran team, but it's not like it's any sort of anomaly among our competition here. In women's basketball, that UK team we just lost to has 1 such player in their top 5 contributors and 2 in their top 8. SC is also a young team, but that's been noted by me numerous times. Our competition there tends to be older on average, yet we are even younger there than our men's team, not to mention that our players there will stick around longer than our men's team.

So our men's team is not as young relative to its competition or relative to how long they'll stick around. And the women's team is much better relative to its competition and with a coach who should be questioned less. How could someone look at these two teams and think they should be viewed similarly? One is worlds better right now and is far more likely to continue improving over the next couple years.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

It you really need me to spell out the difference in the two, then here goes.

First, our women's team, while young, will still be top 10 in the country after a loss. Our men's team, while 'young', is fighting to try to make the NCAA Tournament.

Second, our women's coach has made two national championship games in the last 3 years with this program. Doubting or questioning him seems extremely asinine. The same is not true of our men's coach. He has had success in the past, but it has been a long time, and he hasn't done it here.

Third, as I talked about in my last post, youth in the two sports isn't equivalent. 4 of our top 7 men's players are in their 1st or 2nd year (3 of those in their 2nd). The same is true of 6 of UK's top 8 players; 4 of LSU's top 5 players; 4 of OM's top 6 contributors; and 2 of Bama's top 3, 3 of their top 7. Auburn is a veteran team, but it's not like it's any sort of anomaly among our competition here. In women's basketball, that UK team we just lost to has 1 such player in their top 5 contributors and 2 in their top 8. SC is also a young team, but that's been noted by me numerous times. Our competition there tends to be older on average, yet we are even younger there than our men's team, not to mention that our players there will stick around longer than our men's team.

So our men's team is not as young relative to its competition or relative to how long they'll stick around. And the women's team is much better relative to its competition and with a coach who should be questioned less. How could someone look at these two teams and think they should be viewed similarly? One is worlds better right now and is far more likely to continue improving over the next couple years.

I?ll address these one by one.

First, the girls are good and I?m glad they are good but there is an INCREDIBLE gap in parity between the men?s and women?s game. Any given year for the women there are probably 6 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning the title- some years less than that. This is evident when looking back at women?s NCAA champions over the last 30 years. A 1 or 2 seed wins it. No exceptions. For the men there are probably about 30 teams that can legitimately win if they get hit at the right time. See Auburn last season.

The criticism of Vic was obviously sarcasm. I was just mimicking what people spew on this board about Howland after any men?s loss, and sometimes even wins too.

Lastly your estimate in the men?s game being much younger than the women?s game may be slightly true but you are grossly overestimating that gap. There are 347 division one basketball teams with 13 scholarship players per team. There are 60 NBA draft picks consisting of both college players and international players. So every year the NBA draft depletes around 1% of college talent if all picks are out of American colleges. That?s not nearly as drastic at lowering the age of college as you make it out to be. The teams that have the big age gaps are the elite programs like UK,UNC,Kansas, Duke etc. We will never be these teams. Your argument really doesn?t hold water.

[smootness]

I?ll address these one by one.

First, the girls are good and I?m glad they are good but there is an INCREDIBLE gap in parity between the men?s and women?s game. Any given year for the women there are probably 6 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning the title- some years less than that. This is evident when looking back at women?s NCAA champions over the last 30 years. A 1 or 2 seed wins it. No exceptions. For the men there are probably about 30 teams that can legitimately win if they get hit at the right time. See Auburn last season.

The criticism of Vic was obviously sarcasm. I was just mimicking what people spew on this board about Howland after any men?s loss, and sometimes even wins too.

Lastly your estimate in the men?s game being much younger than the women?s game may be slightly true but you are grossly overestimating that gap. There are 347 division one basketball teams with 13 scholarship players per team. There are 60 NBA draft picks consisting of both college players and international players. So every year the NBA draft depletes around 1% of college talent if all picks are out of American colleges. That?s not nearly as drastic at lowering the age of college as you make it out to be. The teams that have the big age gaps are the elite programs like UK,UNC,Kansas, Duke etc. We will never be these teams. Your argument really doesn?t hold water.

Obviously most of those 347 schools don't have to worry about the early entrants hardly ever. We compete with schools who do. And last year, there were 100 early entrants who did not withdraw. We saw it with Lamar Peters. You're not just dealing with kids who are drafted, you're dealing with a good bit more who are also just leaving school regardless of whether they're drafted or not. We may not be the teams who are losing a bunch of kids to the draft, but we are competing against at least some of them. And we see it this year - when we do get an elite talent, we won't have them long. Without Perry this year, we are garbage. Well, he probably won't be around next year. That consideration is involved in any analysis of this year's team. (ETA - looked it up, and the SEC had 14 of them, only 3 of whom were from Kentucky. It absolutely impacts our league.)

And yes, obviously the men's game and women's game are different. But I'm not sure how that changes this discussion. You could use it as an even further argument to Schaefer's greatness because he has broken that barrier and put us among the very few in the women's game. Tell me the last time our men's team had any sort of real, legitimate chance to make a run.

The differences are clear. So when people talk about our women's team being young, they're right, and that has a big impact. The reason they don't focus on that as much with our men's team (and some have brought it up, btw) is because that is not a reason for as much optimism there, for a bunch of different reasons.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

Lastly your estimate in the men?s game being much younger than the women?s game may be slightly true but you are grossly overestimating that gap. There are 347 division one basketball teams with 13 scholarship players per team. There are 60 NBA draft picks consisting of both college players and international players. So every year the NBA draft depletes around 1% of college talent if all picks are out of American colleges. That?s not nearly as drastic at lowering the age of college as you make it out to be. The teams that have the big age gaps are the elite programs like UK,UNC,Kansas, Duke etc. We will never be these teams. Your argument really doesn?t hold water.

My argument does hold water. I never said we would be Duke or Kentucky. What I am saying is that if Duke starts 5 true freshmen McDonalds AA, then they are clearly a very young team. However, they will never become a veteran team, because those 5 players will skip to the NBA before they can become a veteran team. However, if UConn Women start 5 true freshmen McDonalds AA, then they are also a very young team. However, they will have a chance to become a veteran team as those players age, because they don't leave early.

So Rickea Jackson has a chance to be a junior or senior star. Zion Williamson was never going to be a junior or senior star.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

This is such a dumb stance ari and Bruce are taking.

What matters isnt the LITERAL AGE of the players, what matters for how "young" the team is is how much longer they will be here.

Perry is a So, but hes not going to be here next year. A womens BB player that's a Jr will be here next year.

This isnt a complicated thing to understand. It like saying a JuCo team of all Sophomores is as "young" as a State team of So would be...

And ari, when Howland gets us to 4 straight sweet 16s with 2 national championship appearances THEN you can use bad games by Vics teams to excuse the bad play of Howlands. But nobody would be upset by a bad mens loss at that point.

Saying "our women played bad vs an inferior team yet you dont freak out like you when the mens teams play bad" is like saying moorhead deserved another year because we gave Mullen another one after '16. Mullen had proved himself, Moorhead had not.

Bruce, all you're doing is intentionally misconstruing others arguments and making logical leaps of your own. Debate honestly or not at all

[Ari Gold]

Well done Bruce .. Well done.

[99jc]

I started this thread and will now end it."....Vic is the best coach in any sport in MSU history. End of story!

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

This is such a dumb stance ari and Bruce are taking.

What matters isnt the LITERAL AGE of the players, what matters for how "young" the team is is how much longer they will be here.

Perry is a So, but hes not going to be here next year. A womens BB player that's a Jr will be here next year.

This isnt a complicated thing to understand. It like saying a JuCo team of all Sophomores is as "young" as a State team of So would be...

And ari, when Howland gets us to 4 straight sweet 16s with 2 national championship appearances THEN you can use bad games by Vics teams to excuse the bad play of Howlands. But nobody would be upset by a bad mens loss at that point.

Saying "our women played bad vs an inferior team yet you dont freak out like you when the mens teams play bad" is like saying moorhead deserved another year because we gave Mullen another one after '16. Mullen had proved himself, Moorhead had not.

Bruce, all you're doing is intentionally misconstruing others arguments and making logical leaps of your own. Debate honestly or not at all

There is nothing dishonest about what I am writing. I am simply pointing out the the double standards of this board when comparing the same flaws between the men's and women's basketball teams.

It's perfectly accepted to say the women are young as an excuse when they lose to an inferior team, but saying the same thing about the men is apparently absurd.

[smootness]

There is nothing dishonest about what I am writing. I am simply pointing out the the double standards of this board when comparing the same flaws between the men's and women's basketball teams.

It's perfectly accepted to say the women are young as an excuse when they lose to an inferior team, but saying the same thing about the men is apparently absurd.

It's been explained why this happens. If you don't understand it, fine. But there is a perfectly acceptable explanation for it.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

It's been explained why this happens. If you don't understand it, fine. But there is a perfectly acceptable explanation for it.


The explanation is completely flawed and I showed that. The real explanation is that our fans give the women a pass, and always shit on the men's team.

[smootness]

The inferior team on the women's side was ranked 18th. That's all you need to know. That's why they're given a 'pass'.

If our men's team was ranked 6th, I would agree it would be insane to criticize them much.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

There is nothing dishonest about what I am writing. I am simply pointing out the the double standards of this board when comparing the same flaws between the men's and women's basketball teams.

It's perfectly accepted to say the women are young as an excuse when they lose to an inferior team, but saying the same thing about the men is apparently absurd.

1) the womens team has earned the benefit of the doubt. Mens team hasnt earned shit.

2) womens team lost to a team ranked 12 spots lower than them and routinely competes with the top teams in the country. Mens team loses to teams who are ranked farther away than that, and never gets any major upsets. Of course people dont hold a loss against the women like they do the men, the 2 situations are completely different.

3) womens team is younger than the mens. It just is. Men will get 3 more from Stuart, 3 more from Molinar, 1 more from Ado, maybe 1 more from Nick, Maybe 1 more from Woodard, 0 more from Perry. The mens team already had more game experience than the womens does too.

[timotheus]

Vic has a record of having players improve as they play and mature over their career. To me, this is the biggest indicator of the disparity between the men's and women's basketball programs in Starkville.