I've come to the conclusion

[maroonmania]

I think even for those that felt it was time to make the change, I can't believe anyone would have any real disdain for Rick Stansbury. Rick seems to be a good guy and family man in every way. The ONLY accomplishment in modern MSU basketball worth speaking of that didn't have Stans either as assistant coach or HC at MSU was the 1991 SEC championship. I personally have much more ill will towards Ron Polk and how everything went down in baseball than anything negative towards Stansbury. Stans was just not a disciplinarian in any shape or form and the program eventually got away from him, end of story.

[TopDog58]

So the Bury lovers get on to Coach and the Bury detractors about obsessing about Bury, but you had the bright idea to start ANOTHER thread to beat your Bury loving points across yet again? So who's obsessed now in this whole ridiculous ordeal? I'm so damn confused.

Don't you have some West championship trophies to polish?

[Coach34]

You bring up an interesting point......who's to say what that floor is? Who makes that call? Nobody else has ever matched what Stansbury has done. And don't say 1996......that was a hot run in the tourney.....Stans 2004 team was just as good and actually earned a higher seed. So who's to say there's somebody else out that would take our job that can do better?

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

[maroonmania]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

And the real difference in those 2 teams was we replaced Marcus Grant (95) with Dontae Jones (96). And point of the matter is that once Dontae got "hot" toward the end of the year in 96 he was virtually unstoppable and a better player for us than Grant at tournament time.

[dickiedawg]

Eh, just use the information you have to realize who the truly ignorant posters are and aren't. After that, it doesn't matter.

Facts: Rick Stansbury was a good coach who did good things at MSU. He helped put us on the map as an assistant, and helped keep us there and won us a few conference championships. He lost control at the end (for a myriad of reasons) and it got away from him, costing him his job. He left the position better than he found it. We are better off for having Rick Stansbury as our coach. The end.

I don't remember what the situation was when Rick Stansbury was hired, but I don't see how it was possibly worse than what it was when he left. We were two years removed from the lone Final Four appearance in our history and an NIT team his first year. We're pretty familiar with what Stans left for Ray to work with, and it was no NIT team.

[TopDog58]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

Yea, the 96 team got lucky as they breezed by the 1 and 2 seed no name teams UConn and Cincinnati to reach the Final Four. Meanwhile Bury went to battle against the toughest 6 seed, 7 seed, and 12 seed in the history of the NCAA tournament.

[TopDog58]

I don't remember what the situation was when Rick Stansbury was hired, but I don't see how it was possibly worse than what it was when he left. We were two years removed from the lone Final Four appearance in our history and an NIT team his first year. We're pretty familiar with what Stans left for Ray to work with, and it was no NIT team.

Starting lineup of Tang Hamilton, Antonio Jackson, Robert Jackson, Markell Patterson, and Todd Myles with at least 6 bench players including Lincoln and Q Smith, Gholar, Tyrus Boswell, Zimmerman etc.

Ray inherited a team with a quarter of that talent.

[TheDogFather]

So the Bury lovers get on to Coach and the Bury detractors about obsessing about Bury, but you had the bright idea to start ANOTHER thread to beat your Bury loving points across yet again? So who's obsessed now in this whole ridiculous ordeal? I'm so damn confused.

Don't you have some West championship trophies to polish?

All of the responses were well thought out and intelligent until you had the bright idea to approach your keyboard.

Predictably idiotic.

[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.

[Goat Holder]

The job itself is what I meant. Ray is going to be given 4 years minimum. Personnel can change easily. That's not the issue. It's how the position is seen. Due to Stans, we have winning history and a new practice facility to recruit towards. Looking simply at current personnel is tunnel thinking.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I am going to preface my reply with the fact that I supported Rick Stansbury throughout his whole tenure, including his last year as HC of the Mississippi State Men's Basketball program. Okay, now that I have that out of the way. Rick Stansbury had little control over his team during his tenure. Players, in the later years, used drugs routinely before games and showed little to no respect for him. The discipline showed as the season went on for his teams. Now am I saying that Rick Stansbury is a bad person? No. Was he a great recruiter? You're damn right. Was he a great coach? Not necessarily. He was definitely a product of his recruiting, which most of the time was high quality. Now let's take a look at his last few years as HC.

We all remember the Brawl in Paradise (Hawai'i) between Elgin Bailey and the prodigal son Renardo Sidney. Elgin was kicked off the team and Sidney went on to have a very lackluster career here. Stansbury did have some bright spots and bright players: Bost, Varnado, Powers, etc. But his teams as a whole never produced. No Sweet 16 appearances during his 14-year tenure at the helm. He may be the winningest head coach in MSU history, but he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with, and that can be placed solely on the shoulders of Rick Stansbury whether you want it to or not.

I don't believe that MSU players "routinely" played games high. Practice maybe, but even that not "routinely". Do you have some proof of this? If not, you are guilty of slander.

Interesting how you say "he didn't nearly meet the expectations that his teams were presented with." The main question now is whether we'll ever get back what he built for us. I'd say yes, but when I look around the SEC, I don't see a lot of teams that accomplished what he did during his tenure. So now we're running on a hope and a prayer. I agree there are people who believe in that. Maybe they're right.

[drunkernhelldawg]

That's a load of shit. How quickly people forget we made the Sweet 16 in 1995- and had we not played the National Champion in that game, the 1995 team could have possibly made it to the FF also. The 1995 bunch just simply ran into the best team in the nation.

Plus, the 96 team went 26-8. That's a little more than "hot run in the Tourney"

You are absolutely right about 95 and 96; luck and a hot run had nothing to do with it. We spent some of the 96 season unranked (bad loss to OM), but fans knew that we were a legit top ten team, and we proved it in the SEC tourney (one of our greatest performances ever). And UCLA was just too much better than anybody in 95. Tough draw there.
Another thing I've always felt is that our ineffective transition from Final Four to the 97 season (started by getting blown off the court by Wake Forest in the Great 8 Tourney), was a major factor in our inability to rise above the high middle of NCAA hoops. It's actually been a pretty interesting 20 years, going back to hanging the banner in 91.

[TopDog58]

All of the responses were well thought out and intelligent until you had the bright idea to approach your keyboard.

Predictably idiotic.

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.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Yea, the 96 team got lucky as they breezed by the 1 and 2 seed no name teams UConn and Cincinnati to reach the Final Four. Meanwhile Bury went to battle against the toughest 6 seed, 7 seed, and 12 seed in the history of the NCAA tournament.

Your last sentence is meant to be sarcastic, but it's actually pretty much true. Xavier. Butler. Texas in Dallas.

[bully99]

If Bury is Evil#1, you forgot Evil#2 Polk. Can't mention one without the other.

[TopDog58]

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.

That's usually what happens to an 8 or 9 seed. 2005 preseason ranked #12 finished unranked after going 9-7 in West to earn 9 seed. 2008 never ranked the entire year while going 12-4 in a weak ass West and losing to UGA in the tornado game to earn an 8 seed.

[RougeDawg]

Bottom line with Stans is this. He should have accomplished a lot more than he did, given the talent and circumstances under which he coached. He continued to underachieve when it counted. End of story. For those of you who refuse to as acknowledge this, you are beyond help. Any decent coach would have taken that '04 team to sweet 16. And decent coach takes Stans last team to the tourney. Both of those debacles and many others were simply inexcusable.

Yes he had winning seasons, but that's basically all he had. Look at this current team under Ray. They have a shot at finishing with a winning record, if they find a way to win at least 4 more games. Does that satisfy you? With this team yes, but hell no with the talent Stans had. I want consistent tourney appearances and some deep runs once we get in. Stans wasn't doing that partly because the winning OOC came against some shitty opponents. This is what fogs most of your minds about Stans. Had he playe and beaten decent teams during the season, maybe we would have made more tourneys and made more noise when we got in. It's all a wash because he was slightly above average at best.

[MadDawg]

The big problem with ripping the former coach as being a worthless piece of shit who couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag is that you are setting up the new coach with little room to be succesful. You've basically said getting back to the level the former coach had us (which is yet to happen, still early) means that the new coach sucks just as much as the former coach. So good luck, Ray. You have to do better than any coach has ever done in our history before you will be deemed - slightly above average.

[smootness]

Bottom line with Stans is this. He should have accomplished a lot more than he did, given the talent and circumstances under which he coached. He continued to underachieve when it counted. End of story. For those of you who refuse to as acknowledge this, you are beyond help. Any decent coach would have taken that '04 team to sweet 16. And decent coach takes Stans last team to the tourney. Both of those debacles and many others were simply inexcusable.

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.

[MadDawg]

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.

C'mon smootness. Any church league coach would have beaten Xavier by 20+.