Heck in 1994 we went NIT, 95 Sweet Sixteen, and 96 Final Four. Ben Howland hasn't sniffed success like that (here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Printable View
Heck in 1994 we went NIT, 95 Sweet Sixteen, and 96 Final Four. Ben Howland hasn't sniffed success like that (here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
No one before or after has either. Not sure where you guys come up with this idiotic theory that we're some basketball blue blood or something. It's been 24 years since we made it to the sweet 16 or beyond. When we made the sweet 16 in '95, it ended a 32-year drought. We've been to 3 sweet 16s, period. We've made the tourney 11 times, period. I thought howland would have been better than he's been so far, but to talk of firing him is pure nonsense, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtowndawg
This......Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Some really delusional people on message boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Here's the thing with MSU fans that there is a disconnect.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
We have seen the potential that some of our programs have. And let's say just for arguments sake to establish a baseline that our potential is to be a NCAA team two out of four years, a NIT one out of four and maybe we miss one out of four.
But then we hire a coach that underachieves- but because they underachieve we look at the history and say "well, we've done this 11 times" or whatever it is. But it's not because the potential to be better isn't there. It's because we've been grossly underachieving A LOT.
It's an argument of perceived potential vs perceived reality.
Same could be said for football in some ways.
And I'm not saying that we should necessarily fire Howland. But the reality is he has IMO overall underachieved and with all these players leaving it concerns me. Not the ones going to the NBA as much as the ones that are just transferring out. There are some bad signs here.
Yeah, the last 3 years have been wrong side of the bubble, 5 seed, and (probably) wrong side of the bubble. By my count that's better than 6 of Stansbury's 3-year sets, and worse than 6 of them. The off-the-court issues aren't nearly as bad as the late Stansbury years.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I sure hope none of the people calling for Howland's firing wanted Stansbury to stay.
Is howlands health the elephant in the room nobody is talking about? Has he recovered fully?
Recovered from what?Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
And wouldn't have made the tournament with them. That should tell you all you need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
He had a serious illness. I'm not sure what. But it was/is a long term thing. After the OM game that ended the season, he opened up a little about it without saying he was actually sick. No energy. Forced to nap during the day. Talked about how tough it was on him before the first game against them in Oxford. I'm no doctor but sounded like he's been undergoing treatments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Maybe, maybe not. We were a 4-seed in the sec tourney, and didn't play a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowbell
That would explain a lot of things I was scratching my head about.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
If both go in the 1st round, why were we a bubble team, very mediocre this year?Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
No one wants to admit it, but it's the truth. The home loss to OM last season took the wind out of the fanbase's sails. Packed house and we lost vs. a non-tourney team. No one says you have to like it, but it was just a fact.
Fact of the matter is most of the fanbase doesn't care about the MBK program and if you can't beat Kentucky or Ole Miss then they don't bother. Call them whatever you like, fair weather, etc. It is what it is.
Russian my ass...?.Do they have a G league in Zimbabwe?
OM made the Tournament last year...we also repaid the favor by winning in Oxford later in the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman4248
Also, we were a 5 seed, and in the Dance for the first time in a decade. how is that not enough to energize the fanbase?
I think 45% just look for reasons not to support the team, 45% has a burr up their butt still over stansbury, and 10% are inQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardoMSU
I sincerely hope that the percentage of our fan base with a burr up their butt about Stansbury is less than 45%.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
My poll is unscientific hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
What does dantheman say? His numbers always precise ****Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7