I've come to the conclusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

moved....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TopDog58

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDogFather

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**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach34

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo Darville

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDogFather

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...

Quote:

---

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.