Stans stays in the SEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadDawg

I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about Stansbury. He's a former coach. And now he's back in coaching. All fair game.

I just hope we can one day get to a point where you can talk about Stansbury on here without having to put the disclaimer in your post similar to "while I think Stans was an ok coach, it was time for him to go" out of fear of being blasted by the Stans haters for almost seeming like you don't think he was the worst coach in the history of college basketball.

---

I agree with you. But what I said wasn't a disclaimer. I was just providing all of my current thoughts on Stans. It wasn't to keep from getting bashed by 'Stans haters'; it was so I didn't have people jumping in to agree and say we should have kept him.

I also hope we can one day discuss Ray or the current state of our program without insinuating that we never should have gotten rid of Stans. Check out mcdawg's post a couple ahead of me - how is that better than stating that it was time for Stans to go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

I agree with you. But what I said wasn't a disclaimer. I was just providing all of my current thoughts on Stans. It wasn't to keep from getting bashed by 'Stans haters'; it was so I didn't have people jumping in to agree and say we should have kept him.

I also hope we can one day discuss Ray or the current state of our program without insinuating that we never should have gotten rid of Stans. Check out mcdawg's post a couple ahead of me - how is that better than stating that it was time for Stans to go?

---

It's not. And I really didn't intend to call just you out with my comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

I agree with you. But what I said wasn't a disclaimer. I was just providing all of my current thoughts on Stans. It wasn't to keep from getting bashed by 'Stans haters'; it was so I didn't have people jumping in to agree and say we should have kept him.

I also hope we can one day discuss Ray or the current state of our program without insinuating that we never should have gotten rid of Stans. Check out mcdawg's post a couple ahead of me - how is that better than stating that it was time for Stans to go?

---

I have two separate trains of thought on our Basketball dilemma .

I personally thought it Stupid to fire Stans without giving Him another year to get out team back on track after the Sidney ****up. It was especially stupid to fire Him with out having a quality relacement.

Now On Rick Ray-I have seen nothing to make me feel like He can be a HC. He was left a shitty deal and He has proceeded to **** it up worse. He can't even figure out how to attack a 1-3-1. He can't recruit.

So what is it bout Him (other than He is not Stansbury) that people Like? I'm over the Stans deal, water under the bridge, It is now Ray time. He needs to step Up and be worth a **** or don't let the doorknob hit Him in the ASS.

I want MSU basketball to be a factor not a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

I personally thought it Stupid to fire Stans without giving Him another year to get out team back on track after the Sidney ****up.

---

Sidney by himself wasn't the real problem. In fact, Sidney could be called a symptom of the real problem. If Sidney had been Stansbury's only problem during his final few years, I think there's a good chance he'd still be here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcdawg

I don't know why I even looked at this thread as long as "engie" is around. What an ass in my book. How about Barry Stewart, Jarvis Vanardo, Ravern Johnson, Arnett Moultrie, Dee Bost? Jarvis, Arnett, and Dee are better than any player we will see on our team in a while. And Ravern/Barry could beat every player on our team in a game of horse while spotting them HORS. And, when was the last time we have had a decent crowd at a State basketball game?

---

You are right. You shouldn't have clicked -- and then posterized yourself.

None of the players you listed were considered elite players coming out of highschool. You even listed 3 different 3*s in your assessment. And you are seriously using Ravern Johnson to prop up your ideal of an elite player?

My point is that the players that ALWAYS carried Stansbury teams were the workhorses. The workhorses were the guys that felt like they had something to prove. He quit getting those at the end. Period -- end of story. It was completely over when he ran Phil Turner off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thf24

Sidney by himself wasn't the real problem. In fact, Sidney could be called a symptom of the real problem. If Sidney had been Stansbury's only problem during his final few years, I think there's a good chance he'd still be here.

---

Exactly. Don't know why this is so hard for some of our fans to grasp. Or perhaps it's that they do grasp it and can't admit it because then they'd have to admit how much Stands actually sucked at his job. And that isn't an option for a very vocal contingent of our fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

It was completely over when he ran Phil Turner off.

---

In hindsight, this blows me away. It shocked me at the time, but I rationalized it because I was still in the crowd that believed in Stans, wanted him to stay and succeed, and made some excuses for what was happening.

Things like kicking Elgin Bailey off the team while keeping Sidney and telling Turner to pack his bags are mind-boggling looking back.

Smoot is correct that was the beginning of the end for Stans ,and the fact that on one knew where or had not talked to Bost.during the NBA draft that year ,which cost Bost sitting ballgames that basketball season .That was the year we could have use Turner and Bost early on . There might not had been a fight on the Islands had they been there. It is mind blowing things things people do not handle. Oh well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

In hindsight, this blows me away. It shocked me at the time, but I rationalized it because I was still in the crowd that believed in Stans, wanted him to stay and succeed, and made some excuses for what was happening.

Things like kicking Elgin Bailey off the team while keeping Sidney and telling Turner to pack his bags are mind-boggling looking back.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

Exactly. Don't know why this is so hard for some of our fans to grasp. Or perhaps it's that they do grasp it and can't admit it because then they'd have to admit how much Stands actually sucked at his job. And that isn't an option for a very vocal contingent of our fans.

---

Some people will never see the problem with Stans.
It all goes back to J-Money doing what he wanted without any repercussions.
We lost several really good players because of him, one of them was the Big East player of the year.
J-Money was an undersized power forward that wanted to play point guard and did b/c he had the goods on Stans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishwater99

Some people will never see the problem with Stans.
It all goes back to J-Money doing what he wanted without any repercussions.
We lost several really good players because of him, one of them was the Big East player of the year.
J-Money was an undersized power forward that wanted to play point guard and did b/c he had the goods on Stans.

---

It goes back to further than J-Money. The truth is that Stans caught lightning in a bottle from 02-04 when he had a bunch of very good, high character players who worked hard on their own. Before then and after then, he crapped out gambling on "talent." Plus, the way he recruited led to him being unable to discipline effectively, as we all know.

I also think there's a lot of truth to the idea that the Xavier loss changed Stans' philosophy, too. Prior to that, we were a team built on defense and rebounding. We'd play 2-3 big guys and just physically hammer teams in the post. After that game, we got smaller and Stans started recruiting a bunch of "shooters" who almost all sucked at shooting outside of Barry Stewart. Ben Hansbrough developed after leaving our program. Reggie Delk was a good shooter, but couldn't hit FTs and transferred. Rayvern was streaky. Rick started trying to get 5 guys who could carry a team on any particular night instead of developing a team, and it bit him in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

Exactly. Don't know why this is so hard for some of our fans to grasp. Or perhaps it's that they do grasp it and can't admit it because then they'd have to admit how much Stands actually sucked at his job. And that isn't an option for a very vocal contingent of our fans.

---

You really go down in my estimation with this post. What a rip-roaring statement of nothingness. Plus it starts a whole new debate that I thought we were trying to avoid replaying. This post makes me think you should limit your armchair coaching to football. You're okay at that.

I'm sure you don't care about my estimation, but I thought I'd let you know anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishwater99

Some people will never see the problem with Stans.
It all goes back to J-Money doing what he wanted without any repercussions.
We lost several really good players because of him, one of them was the Big East player of the year.
J-Money was an undersized power forward that wanted to play point guard and did b/c he had the goods on Stans.

---

I think Jamont did probably piss Ben off. But he is not the reason He left.His Mother was the problem. He used the excuse no practice facility. By the way we have a great practice facility thanks to Stansbury and not our athletic dept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

By the way we have a great practice facility thanks to Stansbury and not our athletic dept.

---

I thinks its thanks to those 2 big donors

Rick Ray 36%
Rick Stansbury 64%

#1. Get players

Can Ray do that? We'll see but if you can't do #1 it doesn't matter what else he can do.

Stans could do that. There is no dispute there.

What baffles my mind is that At the time Stan's was fired, EVERYONE said it was because we could not overcome mediocrity.

Our athletic dept may( or may not) have fired him because our program was " dysfunctional" but none( or not many) of
Our fans were saying
That.

Now, they all say that was the reason, because they see ray may be mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheewgumm

#1. Get players

Can Ray do that? We'll see but if you can't do #1 it doesn't matter what else he can do.

Stans could do that. There is no dispute there.

What baffles my mind is that At the time Stan's was fired, EVERYONE said it was because we could not overcome mediocrity.

Our athletic dept may( or may not) have fired him because our program was " dysfunctional" but none( or not many) of
Our fans were saying
That.

Now, they all say that was the reason, because they see ray may be mediocre.

---

Underrated post... the C34 and 7 dwarfs narrative for years is that we needed to get rid of him because we couldn't get to the Sweet 16, because we wanted to take a chance on increasing our ceiling.

Now that everyone's realized that it's a real possibility that we've lowered our ceiling, while also making our floor much lower in the process, they're changing the Stans narrative to "he needed to go because of his lack of discipline."

It's funny to hear c34 say now that "Stans didn't get fired b/c of his lack of success," when that was all he harped on for years. I think one of the reasons all of the Stans haters are being even more vocal now against him is because they realize it's a possibility that we might not ever be a consistent NCAA tourney type program and they're scrambling to defend that they were still right.

Do ya'll really want me to go all Engie on you and link about 50 posts from Sixpack where we all talked about:

1. Players calling out Stands on twiter
2. Lack of discipline
3. Lack of a strength program
4. Drug problems

Too many people have selective memories around here. The only realization many of us have right now is that Stands left RR a steaming pile of monkey turds. Now that RR has had a couple of years to rebuild- it's time for him to start taking some steps forward

Never got the strength program bitch. under Stans we were usually a great rebounding team who played good defense. Now we have this great strength program under Ray and get maybe ten rebounds a games and get pushed around like a bunch of pussies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcdog70

Never got the strength program bitch. under Stans we were usually a great rebounding team who played good defense. Now we have this great strength program under Ray and get maybe ten rebounds a games and get pushed around like a bunch of pussies.

---

Ask the strength coach himself if you want this answered.. and It might not be the answer you are hoping for..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic

Ask the strength coach himself if you want this answered.. and It might not the answer you are hoping for..

---

Exactly. Name just 1 player in Stans' tenure that significantly changed his body while he was here. Spoiler: None did.