Rick Ray gets a 4-star commit tonight

[codeDawg]

Precisely because it's year 3 of a total rebuild is why it's an unreasonable expectation for him to match what our "best ever coach" was able to do in year 14 with FOUR starters projected at one time or another as NBA lottery picks, who was talked about all over the web as having an "elite 8 talent" team -- before crumbling down the stretch and going first out in the SEC and NIT tourneys...

No one is saying they will be "happy" longterm with the 18-20ish wins we're probably going to get this year. We are acknowledging that it's significant movement in the right direction, with brighter days on the horizon with THIS regime, who is now playing you for a "RAY CAN'T CROOT!!!1!1" fool.

It's funny how you bring up the "easier OOC" schedule -- while ignoring the previous SEC schedule being much easier under Stans when we still had divisions and got all of the west teams twice, while only playing the(far superior) east teams once.

I think everybody knows what we're in for this year, and we all know it isn't because Ray isn't coaching well, it's because we don't have the players. That's his fault no matter what the circumstances are. If he will go get the players, we will win more games and everyone will be happy. If he doesn't, we won't, and it's time to move on.

[Dawg61]

it's because we don't have the players. That's his fault no matter what the circumstances are. If he will go get the players, we will win more games and everyone will be happy. If he doesn't, we won't, and it's time to move on.

Well said

[engie]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. How about we get a guy that recruits pretty well and coaches pretty well too. We might be pretty good.

How do we know that isn't what we've got now? Too early to know for sure.

Stans couldn't coach, Ray isn't recruiting well so far. You have to have players and put them in position to make plays.

I don't understand the problem with his recruiting right now? It's an antiquated viewpoint. He's about to grab 4 or 5 very good, if not elite talents back to back. For all intents and purposes, he's already got 3 of them.

Basketball isn't like football. The kids that can play are mostly on AAU teams and they play a lot. If you are worth a damn, you are going to get exposure. There are far fewer "diamonds" in the rough, even in MS.

I disagree. There are a ton of "diamonds in the rough" in basketball. A widespread failure of college player development is what you are actually seeing. Not "all fully developed" players. The only players that actually get "exposure" in terms of rankings are the top 100 players. Beyond that, it's a total shitshoot. I don't need rankings to tell me that Tookie, Weatherspoon, and Strugg are good. I can see that on film. Just like I could see it with Daniels and Houston.

Basketball is, by far, the major college sport with the most parity. If it was so clearcut who and what was elite and made elite teams -- it should be dominated by the same couple of teams every single year. Yet, half the teams we see go deep every march are relative nobodies that have developed their talent into a mature roster and took out the starz when the marbles were on the line...

Yes, we can get some role players, buy you have to have a star to really make waves.

What stars do Wisconsin have that were recruited? One local 5* on roster and on other 4*s or something like that? What "law" is out there preventing us from being similar?

And according to 247, the SEC schools in the top 25:
2014: UK(2), Florida(9), Bama(24)
2013: UK(1), Florida (16), Arkansas (22), South Carolina (25)
2012: UK(2)
2011: UK(1), Arkansas (7), Alabama (9), Florida(14), State (15), Vandy (22)
2010: UK(1), Tennessee (6), Florida (7), Alabama(19), South Carolina (23)

24/7 is crap for basketball recruiting. They simply use the football formula -- which doesn't work when the class size gets alot smaller.

The SEC does not consistently recruit in the top 25

Yes it does. The entire SEC recruits in the top 50 in basketball -- which should, in theory, get them into the tournament practically every single year.

UK and Florida are consistently on the top of that list and consistently win.

There is a tail wagging the dog thing with recruiting rankings that is hard to prove one way or another. By those rankings, we should be crap in football right now -- I know that much.

Talent makes a big difference.

No one is saying it doesn't.

I'm not saying that we can go get Cal or Billy Donavan, but so far Rick Ray has sucked at half of his job, so we don't really get to see if he is any good at the other half.

Ray struggled out of the gate with recruiting for a laundry list of reasons -- but he's rolling just fine now. When Newman signs with us, our 2015 class jumps comfortably into the lauded 24/7 top 25 you were just discussing. When Hicks jumps in the boat, that will put the 2016 class in the top 5 -- and with just 2 players(which we'll assuredly add more), would have been good enough for 33rd nationally in the now signed class of 2015...

[engie]

And you continue to be an asshat and puke all over the page with bubble quotes. Want a reply? One paragraph or less. One quote. This board will be so much better when you start posting like everyone else.

The board would be better if you stopped posting altogether. But we've already established today that you are just trolling without believing your actual position. Hence why you don't actually try to refute things that I rip to shreds on a point-by-point basis, which require individualized quotes to dispel each ignorant thought individually.

Maybe one day -- when you grow up and learn how to use the internet -- you'll be able to do the same thing.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

Twenty wins dude. Stansbury won 21 games and then got fired. You don't get to lower the bar to ridiculously low standards just so Ray has a chance to meet them. You don't get to play the Ole Miss **** Stars game and get everyone focused on phantom possible star commits from Malik Newman and players that won't even see the Hump floor till 2016 to distract us from the mess we're trotting out right now in YEAR THREE. Year three the year of No Point Guard. Hey guys remember that year we tried to play without a point guard? Oh yea that's this year.

So year 3 of a rebuild MUST equal or exceed year 15 (or whatever it was) of the Stansbury era? By that logic we will likely hire and fire a coach every three years for eternity. That sounds lovely. You could at least make an attempt at being reasonable in your criticisms instead of blatantly overreaching with every post.

[codeDawg]

How do we know that isn't what we've got now? Too early to know for sure.


I don't understand the problem with his recruiting right now? It's an antiquated viewpoint. He's about to grab 4 or 5 very good, if not elite talents back to back. For all intents and purposes, he's already got 3 of them.


I disagree. There are a ton of "diamonds in the rough" in basketball. A widespread failure of college player development is what you are actually seeing. Not "all fully developed" players. The only players that actually get "exposure" in terms of rankings are the top 100 players. Beyond that, it's a total shitshoot. I don't need rankings to tell me that Tookie, Weatherspoon, and Strugg are good. I can see that on film. Just like I could see it with Daniels and Houston.

Basketball is, by far, the major college sport with the most parity. If it was so clearcut who and what was elite and made elite teams -- it should be dominated by the same couple of teams every single year. Yet, half the teams we see go deep every march are relative nobodies that have developed their talent into a mature roster and took out the starz when the marbles were on the line...


What stars do Wisconsin have that were recruited? One local 5* on roster and on other 4*s or something like that? What "law" is out there preventing us from being similar?


24/7 is crap for basketball recruiting. They simply use the football formula -- which doesn't work when the class size gets alot smaller.


Yes it does. The entire SEC recruits in the top 50 in basketball -- which should, in theory, get them into the tournament practically every single year.


There is a tail wagging the dog thing with recruiting rankings that is hard to prove one way or another. By those rankings, we should be crap in football right now -- I know that much.


No one is saying it doesn't.


Ray struggled out of the gate with recruiting for a laundry list of reasons -- but he's rolling just fine now. When Newman signs with us, our 2015 class jumps comfortably into the lauded 24/7 top 25 you were just discussing. When Hicks jumps in the boat, that will put the 2016 class in the top 5 -- and with just 2 players(which we'll assuredly add more), would have been good enough for 33rd nationally in the now signed class of 2015...

It's really simple. We need better players than we have. You're saying the same thing. If we get Newman, we are instantly light years better. If 2016 works out that way, we're a whole lot better. THAT is exactly what I'm asking for. I am in no way saying "fire Rick Ray today". I'm saying that the guys we have now and that are committed in 2015 aren't going to get it done no matter how hard they play. Let's get Newman and put together a good class in 2016, or let's go another direction.

[MadDawg]

No offense preacher because you're usually a pretty good poster, but judging by the fact that you were leading the charge to have Mullen replaced last year, I wouldn't be real confident in your own ability to judge a coach and his potential for future success if I were you.

Uh, engie was also leading the charge to fire Mullen and hire Hud. Are you calling him out too?

[Dawg61]

So year 3 of a rebuild MUST equal or exceed year 15 (or whatever it was) of the Stansbury era? By that logic we will likely hire and fire a coach every three years for eternity. That sounds lovely. You could at least make an attempt at being reasonable in your criticisms instead of blatantly overreaching with every post.

20 is less than 21 and 21 got him fired. Twenty wins is fair. 21 was a disaster that meant firing. Again twenty is fair. 17 wins is a fu@king joke. Will James could coach us to 17 wins in basketball.

[engie]

Rivals:

2015
#2 Kentucky
#3 aTm
#11 Auburn
#13 Florida
#24 LSU
#30 South Carolina
6 Pac12
6 ACC
3 Big East
4 B1G
2 American
1 Big12
1 Mountain West
1 a10

2014
#2 Kentucky
#10 Florida
#21 Mizzou
#25 Vandy
#28 Bama
7 ACC
3 Big12
5 Pac12
2 Mountain West
4 Big East
4 B1G

So, in the past 2 classes per Rivals:
13 ACC
11 PAC12
11 SEC
8 B1G
7 Big East
4 Big12
3 Mountain West
2 American
1 A10

There is no excuse for the middle of the pack in the SEC to be as bad as it's been in basketball recently

[MadDawg]

So year 3 of a rebuild MUST equal or exceed year 15 (or whatever it was) of the Stansbury era? By that logic we will likely hire and fire a coach every three years for eternity. That sounds lovely. You could at least make an attempt at being reasonable in your criticisms instead of blatantly overreaching with every post.

What agenda must you have to keep misstating this?

"So year 3 of a rebuild MUST equal or exceed the season that got Stansbury fired?

There, fixed it for you.

[engie]

Uh, engie was also leading the charge to fire Mullen and hire Hud. Are you calling him out too?

You are pretty careless about forgetting how I hedged that aren't you...

[Dawg61]

What agenda must you have to keep misstating this?

"So year 3 of a rebuild MUST equal or exceed the season that got Stansbury fired?

There, fixed it for you.

Exactly

[thf24]

Uh, engie was also leading the charge to fire Mullen and hire Hud. Are you calling him out too?

engie has extensive numbers and information to back up his arguments on this subject. I've never seen preacher back up his opinion with anything other than agreement with others, so I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

20 is less than 21 and 21 got him fired. Twenty wins is fair. 21 was a disaster that meant firing. Again twenty is fair. 17 wins is a fu@king joke. Will James could coach us to 17 wins in basketball.

Do you seriously believe the number of regular season wins Stansbury's final year had jack shit to do with his stepping down/firing?

[engie]

20 is less than 21 and 21 got him fired. Twenty wins is fair. 21 was a disaster that meant firing. Again twenty is fair. 17 wins is a fu@king joke. Will James could coach us to 17 wins in basketball.

Conveniently moving the goalposts you previously had set for Ray. Which is all you've done in regards to him since the beginning...

In other words -- you are admitting that you expect us to show improvement and win 17+ this year -- and are hedging your bets on the improvement being sub 20 so that so you can keep going down this ridiculous path for an extra year instead of admitting things are going in the right direction and everything you've said about Ray has been premature and unfounded.

[MadDawg]

Where was this "tweener" label you accuse me of? Or are you just seeing what you want to see again?

Holy shit you are one sensitive dude.

We were discussing three people - the man, the man after the man, and the man after the man after the man. Johnson85 implied Stans was the first man, Ray was the 2nd man and the third man would be the coach you really want to be. You disagreed (imagine that) and said actually Williams was the man, Stans was the man after the man, and Ray was the man after the man after the man. See that puts Stans in the middle according to you. Or the "tweener". And that got your panties in a wad.

[Goat from MSU]

20 wins is within reach this year.Engie and Coach knows I did not like this hire but Ray needs this and next season he got better players coming in, Ray has 5 players with 800 or more mins. playing time in the SEC that will count for something. We are only 2 games in the season .I hate to think what this board will be like if he loses a game .

[MadDawg]

engie has extensive numbers and information to back up his arguments on this subject. I've never seen preacher back up his opinion with anything other than agreement with others, so I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You could have just said "No, I agree with engie so I will not call him out for wanting to fire Mullen last year. His perceived ability to judge coaches should not be impacted by wanting to fire the most successful coach in MSU football history less than 1 year before he had us ranked #1 for a month."

[engie]

engie has extensive numbers and information to back up his arguments on this subject. I've never seen preacher back up his opinion with anything other than agreement with others, so I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.



Do you seriously believe the number of regular season wins Stansbury's final year had jack shit to do with his stepping down/firing?

The other big difference is that I admitted when I had jumped the gun about Mullen at the FIRST POSSIBLE juncture to admit such(when he miraculously pulled off the Egg Bowl -- at the time his best win and first win as an underdog in 45 games). I owned it THAT NIGHT. I have never given Mullen grief for one second after that Egg Bowl victory. Although it took me until the win in Baton Rouge to be firmly back in his corner. My viewpoint on Mullen was consistent and well-spelled-out multiple times -- with a consistent set of circumstances he had to meet to get me back in his corner. #1 become bowl eligible to get me off his back -- he did. #2 recruit better -- has has. #3 beat someone good -- he has. He's given us more this year than any reasonable person could have expected. This "Fire Mullen" bullshit you keep trying to run is hilarious -- when it was CLEARLY spelled out by me over a dozen times that you've seen that I was ONLY IN FAVOR OF FIRING MULLEN IF AND WHEN HE LOST THE EGG BOWL. Literally -- a dozen times -- that you've seen. And you are still stuck on it. What is even funnier is the guy that's stuck on that WANTED TO FIRE COHEN....

The PROBLEM with the Dawg61 grouping of the anti-Ray bias is the fact that their goalposts are constantly moving in order to keep bitching. It makes their positions unreliable -- calls actual motive to question -- and basically reduces them to an actual joke. If they could spell out a reasonable position -- even if negative -- with a reasonable approach -- no one would be calling them to task constantly. Instead, it's constantly evolving in order to bitch and fubar every single basketball thread that happens here.

[engie]

Holy shit you are one sensitive dude.

We were discussing three people - the man, the man after the man, and the man after the man after the man. Johnson85 implied Stans was the first man, Ray was the 2nd man and the third man would be the coach you really want to be. You disagreed (imagine that) and said actually Williams was the man, Stans was the man after the man, and Ray was the man after the man after the man. See that puts Stans in the middle according to you. Or the "tweener". And that got your panties in a wad.

Holy shit -- you still don't get what I was actually saying after it's been spelled out 3 times in this very thread. I wish I was surprised.

[engie]

You could have just said "No, I agree with engie so I will not call him out for wanting to fire Mullen last year. His perceived ability to judge coaches should not be impacted by wanting to fire the most successful coach in MSU football history less than 1 year before he had us ranked #1 for a month."

Where did I "want to fire Mullen last year"? Once again -- you are skewing my position by leaving out the bullet points on my Mullen position.

You see only through your own little prism, which isn't even close to the reality of a position that I spelled out, in detail, over a dozen times on every MSU site. But then again -- you can't even comprehend the shit that I spelled out for you MULTIPLE times in this very thread -- so asking you to comprehend something old is certainly asking alot.