Why we need to give Ray a few years to get this thing going

Printable View

11-13-2013, 10:45 AM
DawgInMemphis

Why we need to give Ray a few years to get this thing going

I've heard several folks talk about how its so easy to turn around a basketball program in one or two seasons because all it takes is one or two blue chip recruits. Well, I'm gonna call BS on this. Outside of being able to land an NBA lottery pick(s), this simply isn't true. For all the hoopla that Stans got about being a great recruiter, how many lottery picks was he able to actually get on campus? Zero...

The way we're going to get back to the upper echelon in the SEC is by following the other MSU's model - get solid college players that stay for 4 or 5 years. A team made up of solid college players that play physical, team basketball - and are well coached - will be regulars in the Big Dance. Once you get to that point, it sure is a heck of a lot easier to recruit NBA type talent, and the cycle feeds itself.

I think we're going to see an improved team this year, but one that still has a long ways to go. By year four, I expect us to be in the top 4 or 5 in the SEC consistently again - along with UK, UT, UF, and Mizzou. If by Ray's fourth year we're not there, then I'll be off the bandwagon (because while it takes more than a year or two to build a basketball program, it's certainly "easier" than football). Until then, I'm sold on this guy. I think he's doing a hell of a job.
11-13-2013, 10:55 AM
Eric Nies Grind Time

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawgInMemphis

I've heard several folks talk about how its so easy to turn around a basketball program in one or two seasons because all it takes is one or two blue chip recruits. Well, I'm gonna call BS on this. Outside of being able to land an NBA lottery pick(s), this simply isn't true. For all the hoopla that Stans got about being a great recruiter, how many lottery picks was he able to actually get on campus? Zero...

The way we're going to get back to the upper echelon in the SEC is by following the other MSU's model - get solid college players that stay for 4 or 5 years. A team made up of solid college players that play physical, team basketball - and are well coached - will be regulars in the Big Dance. Once you get to that point, it sure is a heck of a lot easier to recruit NBA type talent, and the cycle feeds itself.

I think we're going to see an improved team this year, but one that still has a long ways to go. By year four, I expect us to be in the top 4 or 5 in the SEC consistently again - along with UK, UT, UF, and Mizzou. If by Ray's fourth year we're not there, then I'll be off the bandwagon (because while it takes more than a year or two to build a basketball program, it's certainly "easier" than football). Until then, I'm sold on this guy. I think he's doing a hell of a job.

Year 4 he needs to make the tournament or get fired.
11-13-2013, 11:12 AM
MarketingBully01

Ray does need 4-5 years because A) he has never been a head coach before, and B) he has no recruiting ties here. If we had hired a head coach that had ties to the area or even an assistant that had ties to the area (say Coach Kirby), they could have rebuilt us much faster. But I digress, this is a dead horse I have beaten to death. Personally, if he hasn't done something by year 3, he won't do anything. Think about it. The SEC is down big time. In fact, the conference is crap. We should be in the top four or so now but Stricklin blew it up and we let him. Oh well....
11-13-2013, 11:15 AM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time

Year 4 he needs to make the tournament or get fired.

Seriously?
11-13-2013, 11:15 AM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarketingBully01

We should be in the top four or so now but Stricklin blew it up and we let him. Oh well....

Tell me what realistic moves Stricklin could have made to have us in the top 4 of the conference right now.
11-13-2013, 11:16 AM
TheRef

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootness

Tell me what realistic moves Stricklin could have made to have us in the top 4 of the conference right now.

Pitino!!!!*****************
11-13-2013, 11:26 AM
Eric Nies Grind Time

Not making the tournament after 4 seasons is unacceptable. He will have several seniors on the team for that season. If he has recruited decently he should be able to field a good enough team to make the tournament. You don't have to beat great teams in the SEC aside from Florida and Kentucky.
11-13-2013, 11:27 AM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time

Not making the tournament after 4 seasons is unacceptable. He will have several seniors on the team for that season. If he has recruited decently he should be able to field a good enough team to make the tournament. You don't have to beat great teams in the SEC aside from Florida and Kentucky.

I see your point but don't think it should be that cut and dried, based on what he inherited.
11-13-2013, 11:34 AM
Eric Nies Grind Time

If he is landing some nice recruits by that time it may require a 5th season to see what he can do. But I think by that time we will see if he is actually recruiting good talent or not and can make a decision. Houston, Dunlap and Black all look like decent recruits. Not sure why Black is not rated yet....but I would definitely feel better about him if he could land a bigger recruit.
11-13-2013, 11:56 AM
tcdog70

Kansas, is playing 6 freshmen. I know We are not Kansas but this is basketball where two players can make you. You don't need 5 years three should be plenty to know if your coach is worth a shit. If we ran the Princeton Offense we might be able to compete with lesser talent. But to win with Ray's Motion you have to have players.
11-13-2013, 12:00 PM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcdog70

Kansas, is playing 6 freshmen. I know We are not Kansas but this is basketball where two players can make you.

The OP is right, though. That may be true if you're getting truly elite recruits, but if you're not, that isn't really a true statement.

And we have rarely brought in truly elite recruits.
11-13-2013, 12:08 PM
engie

Year 3 -- his expectations are identical to Stansbury.

He doesn't "get more time" because he failed in recruiting on the front end. And I'm not going to change my standards simply because he's a new coach that I want to see succeed. 3 years is PLENTY of time for most of these coaches to get their programs up and running. Hell, based on the Baylor game I saw yesterday, it looks to me like Frank Martin has South Carolina on it's feet in year 2 -- a program that's much worse historically than us.

My first year expectations were surpassed. Both in number of wins, effort, and improvement. I'm not saying a hotshot recruiter wouldn't have had a better MSU team. But for what we actually had, we overperformed.
I want to see marked improvement to .500 or better this year.
I want to see us as a bubble NCAA team in year 3 -- and will be seriously questioning our direction if we miss the NIT.

IDGAF about "recruiting" until it obviously limits our ability to take steps forward as a program.
11-13-2013, 12:17 PM
PMDawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootness

The OP is right, though. That may be true if you're getting truly elite recruits, but if you're not, that isn't really a true statement.

And we have rarely brought in truly elite recruits.

Renardo***********
11-13-2013, 12:25 PM
MarketingBully01

I agree with Engie here point blank. When you hire a great coach, three years is plenty to see where we should be.
11-13-2013, 12:33 PM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by engie

Hell, based on the Baylor game I saw yesterday, it looks to me like Frank Martin has South Carolina on it's feet in year 2 -- a program that's much worse historically than us.

I agree with most of your post, but you can't really compare Martin year 2 to Ray year 2, as you know. Martin has much more in terms of experience, legitimate upperclassmen, and talent. In terms of his current roster, he is basically where Ray will be in year 4...he inherited 3 players who are now seniors, one of whom was a 4-star, the other two 3-stars. He also inherited a player who is now a junior that was a 4-star. He also had these players as juniors and sophomores last year, and Ray's team was still somehow better.

I know that doesn't have much to do directly with your point, since you're not saying anything bad about last year's team, but again, in terms of what he's working with, Martin is now where Ray will be in a couple of years.
11-13-2013, 12:37 PM
DawgInMemphis

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarketingBully01

I agree with Engie here point blank. When you hire a great coach, three years is plenty to see where we should be.

You know which schools are able to hire proven great coaches? MSU is not on that list, and the demand is much greater than the supply. We're not at the bottom of the totem pole, but we're not at the top by any means. I think Ray is going to be very good. He is very highly thought of in the coaching realm. It takes time. It's more about the direction/trend/feel than how many years. For us, I think 4 years is the minimum as long as there is improvement between each season. There are just too many factors to say the results must be X by the end of year Y.
11-13-2013, 12:54 PM
engie

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootness

I agree with most of your post, but you can't really compare Martin year 2 to Ray year 2, as you know.

Why not?

Quote:

Martin has much more in terms of experience, legitimate upperclassmen, and talent.

If that were the case -- why did we BEAT him twice last year? Fact is, their roster was terrible when he inherited it -- and he's developed them and recruited his ass off.

Quote:

In terms of his current roster, he is basically where Ray will be in year 4...he inherited 3 players who are now seniors, one of whom was a 4-star, the other two 3-stars. He also inherited a player who is now a junior that was a 4-star. He also had these players as juniors and sophomores last year, and Ray's team was still somehow better.

I don't care WHAT their star ratings were in recruiting. Fact of the matter is -- he's got TWO upperclassman contributors on the whole team right now. So, I don't know what you are reading in recruiting. They were 2-14 in the SEC the year before he took over -- and were 4-14 in his first year. Ray inherited several upperclass 3 and 4*s too. It may not be "Ray's fault" that they are gone -- but Stansbury would have found a way to keep the ones we needed on the team.

Quote:

I know that doesn't have much to do directly with your point, since you're not saying anything bad about last year's team, but again, in terms of what he's working with, Martin is now where Ray will be in a couple of years.

So, the team that 10-21(2-14) in year 4 of Darrin Horn was in 2 years better shape than the one Stans left us at 21-12(8-8)?

10 of 12 contributors on South Carolina's team are freshmen and sophomores that Martin recruited.

It's a VERY comparable situation -- especially when it's WIDELY known that we are a traditionally much better basketball school than them.
11-13-2013, 12:55 PM
engie

Quote:

Originally Posted by DawgInMemphis

You know which schools are able to hire proven great coaches? MSU is not on that list, and the demand is much greater than the supply. We're not at the bottom of the totem pole, but we're not at the top by any means. I think Ray is going to be very good. He is very highly thought of in the coaching realm. It takes time. It's more about the direction/trend/feel than how many years. For us, I think 4 years is the minimum as long as there is improvement between each season. There are just too many factors to say the results must be X by the end of year Y.

No offense -- you are overcomplicating something that is SIMPLE -- in order to fit what you "want" to see happen.

We are used to a certain level of result that our previous 2 coaches gave us pretty consistently. If Ray can't get us back to that in 4 years, it will be time for him to hit the road. My expectation is to be back there in 3 -- and I'll be questioning the direction of the program if we don't make it back in 3.

That said, I see no reason at this point to believe that we can't be a borderline NCAA/solid NIT team by year 3... I believe Ray can get us there.
11-13-2013, 12:59 PM
Dawg61

Vandy passed us long ago, LSU has been landing top 100 players same as Arkansas, USC has Psycho Frank, Ole Miss just won the SEC, aTm is much improved. The only SEC programs I can see MSU being better than in year 4 are Georgia and Auburn.
11-13-2013, 01:04 PM
MarketingBully01

Yep Engie, Smootness and Memphis are both full of shit on their previous two posts. Smoot for saying Martin inherited more talent and Memphis saying our program is shit that no coach wanted. No coach wanted it because of Stricklin more then anything. Our basketball program was one of the top jobs in the SEC and Stricklin shot for the ground and put our perception at 14th. The fact that South Carolina went out and got Martin should tell you where we are at the AD position. I have no doubts that Byrne would have gotten Scott Drew which IMO would have been as big a home run hire as USC got.
11-13-2013, 01:06 PM
MarketingBully01

Only because Stricklin put us where we are. If you want to blame anyone, blame Stricklin.
11-13-2013, 01:06 PM
DawgInMemphis

Quote:

Originally Posted by engie

No offense -- you are overcomplicating something that is SIMPLE -- in order to fit what you "want" to see happen.

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.
11-13-2013, 01:16 PM
DawgInMemphis

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarketingBully01

Yep Engie, Smootness and Memphis are both full of shit on their previous two posts. Smoot for saying Martin inherited more talent and Memphis saying our program is shit that no coach wanted. No coach wanted it because of Stricklin more then anything. Our basketball program was one of the top jobs in the SEC and Stricklin shot for the ground and put our perception at 14th. The fact that South Carolina went out and got Martin should tell you where we are at the AD position. I have no doubts that Byrne would have gotten Scott Drew which IMO would have been as big a home run hire as USC got.

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.
11-13-2013, 01:20 PM
DawgInMemphis

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarketingBully01

Only because Stricklin put us where we are. If you want to blame anyone, blame Stricklin.

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.
11-13-2013, 01:24 PM
601Dawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Nies Grind Time

Year 4 he needs to make the tournament or get fired.

THIS

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.
11-13-2013, 02:03 PM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarketingBully01

Yep Engie, Smootness and Memphis are both full of shit on their previous two posts. Smoot for saying Martin inherited more talent and Memphis saying our program is shit that no coach wanted. No coach wanted it because of Stricklin more then anything. Our basketball program was one of the top jobs in the SEC and Stricklin shot for the ground and put our perception at 14th. The fact that South Carolina went out and got Martin should tell you where we are at the AD position. I have no doubts that Byrne would have gotten Scott Drew which IMO would have been as big a home run hire as USC got.

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.

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.
11-13-2013, 02:24 PM
MadDawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by engie

Year 3 -- his expectations are identical to Stansbury.

Props to engie here. Never understood the idea of having different expectations on a new coach versus the one you just fired.
11-13-2013, 02:45 PM
C222

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadDawg

Props to engie here. Never understood the idea of having different expectations on a new coach versus the one you just fired.

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.
11-13-2013, 02:50 PM
smootness

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.
11-13-2013, 03:10 PM
engie

Quote:

Originally Posted by C222

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.

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.

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...
11-13-2013, 03:27 PM
MadDawg

Quote:

Originally Posted by C222

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.

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.