Only because Stricklin put us where we are. If you want to blame anyone, blame Stricklin.
Printable View
Only because Stricklin put us where we are. If you want to blame anyone, blame Stricklin.
The only thing I want to see happen is for State to have sustained success. I don't care who gets us there, but I think Ray is the right guy for the job. We'll see as the next two seasons unfold.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
I admire your passion. Nobody is saying our program is s***, or at least I'm not. The status of our program after Stans "retired" was as low as it's been in a long time. You obviously aren't a Stricklin fan, and that's fine. Saying you have not doubts that Byrne would've gotten Drew is nothing more than wild conjecture. Could he have made a better hire? Maybe. Who knows... I would have loved for us to hire a guy that was more proven (Smart, Williams, Drew, etc.) It didn't happen. What I do know is that I like the way Coach Ray conducts his business. Let's give the man some time to see what he can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketingBully01
Also, USC getting Martin was the perfect storm of sorts. Martin HATED his AD at K-State.. absolutely hated him. He downgraded from K-State to USC because he hated his boss. There weren't a lot of open jobs at the time. USC threw a bunch of money at him as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketingBully01
THISQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time
He will have 3 guys who will be four year starters in Sword, Ware, and Thomas as well as the rest of the roster will ALL be HIS GUYS.
If he isnt able to make the tourney in year 4 or at least be on the bubble his job should be examined then.
The fact that Martin inherited more talent is a fact. I don't get why we're focusing on records here. So the fact that Ray beat Martin twice means Ray had at least as much talent as Martin? That makes no sense. In that case, someone can never do a better coaching job than another coach; the talent will equal the record always without exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketingBully01
I will admit that I didn't realize several of those upperclassmen transferred after last year. And that may be a good thing for SC. But it remains a fact that Martin had more to work with than Ray last year, not to mention that most of our fanbase would be irate if Ray had run off some talented upperclassmen; we had fans ticked that guys like Steele were kicked off, and SC's upperclassmen were definitely more talented (really, engie? We had 4-star upperclassmen leave? Who?).
But that doesn't fit the narrative that Martin was a far better hire than Ray. Ray did more with less last year; that is simply a fact. That doesn't mean anything for the future, but it is true of last year.
Anyway, the mistake you're making is that you're assuming someone with a bigger name would automatically be a better hire. We haven't yet seen what Ray will do, and until we do, we just don't know. I'm sure there were some Duke fans who thought they could do better than a guy with a middling record at Army. Well, they couldn't have; literally, they could not have possibly made a better hire, regardless of who the other candidates were and what their resumes looked like.
Just because Scott Drew would have been 'as big a home run hire' as Martin doesn't mean it would have been as good a hire in the long run; we don't even know that Martin was a better hire. It's all speculation at this point. You can't use that as a reason why the AD has to go.
Props to engie here. Never understood the idea of having different expectations on a new coach versus the one you just fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
Because sometimes the situation in which they inherit the program is different. Stans' team his first year was 1000x's more talented than Ray's. Ray's rebuilding job is a little tougher.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDawg
Believe me, I'm not suggesting that we should have a different standard for Ray than Stans; the only question is when that fully begins. I'm ok with saying that starting in year 3, his expectations are the same. But I don't know if I can fully get on board an ultimatum like, 'Make the Tournament by year 4 or you're fired.' I think we should expect to field a competitive team next year (meaning at least a middle-of-the-road SEC team) and begin challenging for postseason berths. And obviously if we get 4 or 5 years in and we're still not back to where we were, then it's time to make a change.
That's correct. Stans' first teams were ones he'd already built behind the scenes for the better part of a decade -- and they still weren't very good. But that is beside the point. It's totally unfair to compare "start of career at MSU" for both for a ton of different reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by C222
I simply expect the new coach to win just as much as the old coach did when he got ran out of here. If he doesn't, we hired the wrong coach. Not saying we should have kept Stansbury -- I was on the bandwagon to get rid of him earlier than many -- but I'm not saying Ray is the answer either. I think he CAN be, and I've seen some things that show me some promise as well as some things that are concerning -- but it's too early to make determinations and get attached to him.
Bottom line is -- if we aren't on the cusp of breaking through to the tourney next year, he SHOULD be coaching for his job in year 4...
Of course it is. That's why there are no expectations at all in year one and two. My statement should have included a base time to get some players.Quote:
Originally Posted by C222