On basketball improvement...

[codeDawg]

Largely related to our average of 15 turnovers per game.

This is absolutely a tournament-level defensive team that's prettymuch elite on that side other than point guard position...

We are 10th in the SEC in defensive efficiency.

ETA: Didn't read the top part. Yes, we are a very good scoring defense because we force teams to shoot from the outside. I think we are 4th or 5th in the SEC there. That is the high point of this team.

[Goat from MSU]

Guys :This is all good data ,but and I say but after this game we play Vandy ,South Car. and Mo. We need to win all 3 games or we will be playing opening day in the SEC Tour. for the 3rd time in a row .Yes we have looked and played better but does a coach gets a fourth year just to pull us out of opening day play. Think about, let it sink in have our fan base been dull down that badly.

[smootness]

Guys :This is all good data ,but and I say but after this game we play Vandy ,South Car. and Mo. We need to win all 3 games or we will be playing opening day in the SEC Tour. for the 3rd time in a row .Yes we have looked and played better but does a coach gets a fourth year just to pull us out of opening day play. Think about, let it sink in have our fan base been dull down that badly.

No one thinks where we are is good enough.

Both sides need to at least enter the discussion honestly. Criticizing Ray by saying, 'Just getting to .500 in the SEC is now good enough for you guys?!' is ridiculous. Similarly, supporting Ray by saying, 'Hey, 'we're showing improvement by going from horrid to pretty darn horrid' is stupid.

We all knew when the decision was made to get rid of Stans that it was a move that would hurt us in the immediate future, and that was before we saw how many guys left, were injured, etc. I mean, Ray's first team had 1 point that had ever been scored in D1 basketball, combined. So we knew things would turn downward initially. But it was made to give us a chance to ultimately go higher than Stans had taken us.

If you told me that after 2 years of Ray, we were still at the bottom of the SEC, I would have said fine. Again, we all knew the first 2 years were essentially a loss and that we would be awful. However, if you told me that after 3 years we would be in the same place, I wouldn't have liked that. Time is running out for Ray, no doubt. He needs to produce a serious turnaround next year that shows us he can put a good team on the floor.

No one's expectations have been lowered for our program as a whole. No one thinks consistently missing the NCAAT, let alone the NIT, is good enough. If Ray proves that he can't ever get us even to where Stans had us, everyone will support him being removed.

And yes, the last 3 games for us are very important. We have to win at least 2 of them, or I will support a change being made.

[codeDawg]

Guys :This is all good data ,but and I say but after this game we play Vandy ,South Car. and Mo. We need to win all 3 games or we will be playing opening day in the SEC Tour. for the 3rd time in a row .Yes we have looked and played better but does a coach gets a fourth year just to pull us out of opening day play. Think about, let it sink in have our fan base been dull down that badly.

Oh, I agree. Not being the worst in one category doesn't mean you should get to keep coaching.

[Dawg61]

Great offense that is fun to watch tends to lead to a longer leash. If Ray is 5-9 SEC but 4th in offense I think he has less heat on his seat. Don't ever be terrible on offense basically.

[CottonDog]

Losers improve. Winners win. We aren't winning much.

[RougeDawg]

Losers improve. Winners win. We aren't winning much.

Come on now, why would you let reality get in the way of an agenda?**

[Schultzy]

No one thinks where we are is good enough.

Both sides need to at least enter the discussion honestly. Criticizing Ray by saying, 'Just getting to .500 in the SEC is now good enough for you guys?!' is ridiculous. Similarly, supporting Ray by saying, 'Hey, 'we're showing improvement by going from horrid to pretty darn horrid' is stupid.

We all knew when the decision was made to get rid of Stans that it was a move that would hurt us in the immediate future, and that was before we saw how many guys left, were injured, etc. I mean, Ray's first team had 1 point that had ever been scored in D1 basketball, combined. So we knew things would turn downward initially. But it was made to give us a chance to ultimately go higher than Stans had taken us.

If you told me that after 2 years of Ray, we were still at the bottom of the SEC, I would have said fine. Again, we all knew the first 2 years were essentially a loss and that we would be awful. However, if you told me that after 3 years we would be in the same place, I wouldn't have liked that. Time is running out for Ray, no doubt. He needs to produce a serious turnaround next year that shows us he can put a good team on the floor.

No one's expectations have been lowered for our program as a whole. No one thinks consistently missing the NCAAT, let alone the NIT, is good enough. If Ray proves that he can't ever get us even to where Stans had us, everyone will support him being removed.

And yes, the last 3 games for us are very important. We have to win at least 2 of them, or I will support a change being made.

Another really smart post of many from Smootness and I wil dispute something you said too. I used to think everyone agreed that replacing Stansbury would hurt us in the short term and lower expectations for the first few years would be obvious.
But not everyone seems to subscribe to this. If it's not agreed upon that we were a complete dumpster when Ray got here then there is no need in arguing with the Ray detractors. Them not understanding this fundamental reality makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.
It can be argued as to how long it takes to rebuild but the expectations of where we should be with this group of upperclassmen bricklayers is unrealistic to me.
No basketball coach can look smart offensively when the roster can't shoot. You can teach shooting a little but you can't turn a slasher into Jeff Malone or Darryl Wilson.

[codeDawg]

It can be argued as to how long it takes to rebuild but the expectations of where we should be with this group of upperclassmen bricklayers is unrealistic to me.

I don't think anyone thinks we have a bunch of sharpshooters on this team, but offense is beyond bad. It's historically awful. They turn the ball over at a high rate, they do not get assists, they don't get open shots, and they don't take high percentage ones. They look like they don't know what they are doing because they haven't been adequately taught what to do. If we were just not very good on offense it would be one thing, but in year 3 we are putrid.

The only coaches in the SEC that have been this consistently bad on that side of the ball have continued to be terrible after getting fired. I'm not saying upgrading the roster wouldn't help, because it obviously would, but coaching is the crux of the problem.

[Schultzy]

I don't think anyone thinks we have a bunch of sharpshooters on this team, but offense is beyond bad. It's historically awful. They turn the ball over at a high rate, they do not get assists, they don't get open shots, and they don't take high percentage ones. They look like they don't know what they are doing because they haven't been adequately taught what to do. If we were just not very good on offense it would be one thing, but in year 3 we are putrid.

The only coaches in the SEC that have been this consistently bad on that side of the ball have continued to be terrible after getting fired. I'm not saying upgrading the roster wouldn't help, because it obviously would, but coaching is the crux of the problem.

But you don't design an offense around rubs and double screens for open 3's when you can't shoot.

You do what Ray has done which is to take it to the rim and draw fouls. We did this well the first half of the season but now the league has decided to take dribble penetration away from us as much as they can and force us to shoot from outside.

That is a difficult weakness do hide even for a great coach, if not impossible. The true test of Rick Ray will be if he can win when he has a decent roster. I hope he makes it long enough for us to find out.

I will agree his inbounds and press breaking approach needs to improve immediately. You have to get someone to the middle of the floor when breaking a press, trying to dribble your way out of it won't work at any level. He can improve here, though.

I just wish more people agreed on how far we had to come back from. And how terrible high school players are coached in the southeast. I love basketball and wonder if it will ever be played well again with the advent of AAU and players thinking they have to leave their high school and the accountability that is inherent there to their local community in terms of playing to win instead of playing for the highlight reel to be sent out to colleges.

It has hurt SEC basketball greatly and college hoops on the whole as well. To me, even watching a top ten matchup is bad basketball these days. Athletic, but bad basketball.

[smootness]

I actually think we're good at breaking the press. Most of our turnovers come from dumb plays in the halfcourt.

Our problem against the press is that even when we break it, we don't have guys that can really capitalize on that.

[maroonmania]

If it's not agreed upon that we were a complete dumpster when Ray got here then there is no need in arguing with the Ray detractors. Them not understanding this fundamental reality makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

Well, we may have been a dumpster fire off the court but we were never a dumpster fire on the court other than at times we didn't play live up to maximum potential. Stans' last team was ranked in the Top 20 just 4 weeks prior to season's end and was a 1 seed in the NIT. Stans' teams never had losing records and were always competitive within the SEC. I was expecting to be pretty weak the first year Ray was here but anyone who says they knew or even thought we were going to have 3 straight overall losing records after changing coaches is likely not being honest either. Several things have contributed to it taking this long to try and pull ourselves up under Ray including 1. a ridiculous number of injuries, 2. extremely poor recruiting in the first couple of seasons, 3. very little emphasis on coaching up things offensively (ie., "the offense will take care of itself" attitude) and 4. lack of backing of Ray by the fanbase (many of the old Stans supporters have made it as difficult on Ray as Polk supporters did on Cohen). At this point I'm resigned to having Ray back again next year but I'm not seeing things ever really getting significantly better under him. Getting to middle of the pack in the SEC may be the ceiling with him. Hope he can prove me wrong. Now if we sign Malik that could be a game changer because it would bring back the fanbase, nearly assure us of having an NCAA tourney team next year and will help us with other top line recruits.

[smootness]

Well, we may have been a dumpster fire off the court but we were never a dumpster fire on the court other than at times we didn't play live up to maximum potential. Stans' last team was ranked in the Top 20 just 4 weeks prior to season's end and was a 1 seed in the NIT. Stans' teams never had losing records and were always competitive within the SEC.

We had one losing season and one .500 season under Stans.

And anyone pointing to that 2011-2012 team still winning 20 games is missing the reason that year was so bad. We had won 17 games the year before and were still only a 4 seed (not a 1) in the NIT that year with all that talent.

That was not a 'Well, we're still ok, so we can get better from here' kind of year. That was as good as it was going to get again. We have never had the kind of talent we had on that team. That's why it was such a big year for Stans...and we crashed and burned down the stretch and ended up being an average-at-best SEC team. It wasn't getting better than that going forward. That was our new ceiling.

So pointing to that year saying 'We were still at least playing in the postseason' seems to indicate some belief that we could still be pretty good. But again, that was as good as it was going to get from there. That wasn't an average year under Stans anymore, that was the new ceiling. We had won 17 the year before and would have won probably about 15 or so the next year.

[codeDawg]

But you don't design an offense around rubs and double screens for open 3's when you can't shoot.

You do what Ray has done which is to take it to the rim and draw fouls. We did this well the first half of the season but now the league has decided to take dribble penetration away from us as much as they can and force us to shoot from outside.

That is a difficult weakness do hide even for a great coach, if not impossible. The true test of Rick Ray will be if he can win when he has a decent roster. I hope he makes it long enough for us to find out.

I will agree his inbounds and press breaking approach needs to improve immediately. You have to get someone to the middle of the floor when breaking a press, trying to dribble your way out of it won't work at any level. He can improve here, though.

I just wish more people agreed on how far we had to come back from. And how terrible high school players are coached in the southeast. I love basketball and wonder if it will ever be played well again with the advent of AAU and players thinking they have to leave their high school and the accountability that is inherent there to their local community in terms of playing to win instead of playing for the highlight reel to be sent out to colleges.

It has hurt SEC basketball greatly and college hoops on the whole as well. To me, even watching a top ten matchup is bad basketball these days. Athletic, but bad basketball.

Serious question. What makes you think Ray is the guy to be successful here? The question isn't why it was / is hard to succeed from where we were, but what is it that Ray has shown that indicates he will win at the level we are all looking for?

[smootness]

Serious question. What makes you think Ray is the guy to be successful here? The question isn't why it was / is hard to succeed from where we were, but what is it that Ray has shown that indicates he will win at the level we are all looking for?

The things I like from Ray's teams, and they've been pretty consistent, are the defense, the consistent effort and energy, and the fact that they seem to be fully bought in. He has yet to lose a team despite losing a lot of games. Those are the primary positives.

The negatives mostly have to do with talent. Turnovers, jump shooting, post offense, etc. Those are the primary negatives. And they're big negatives, no doubt.

The question is, do I think he can turn it around? And I'm not sold one way or the other. I'm less sold that he can do it than I was a year or two ago, but at the same time, his recruiting is picking up, and I think the talent level has been the main negative.

So if he can increase the talent while at the very least keeping the positives we've seen, some of those negatives should turn around. But if next year's team still struggles like this, then it's probably time to make a move.

[msstate7]

The things I like from Ray's teams, and they've been pretty consistent, are the defense, the consistent effort and energy, and the fact that they seem to be fully bought in. He has yet to lose a team despite losing a lot of games. Those are the primary positives.

The negatives mostly have to do with talent. Turnovers, jump shooting, post offense, etc. Those are the primary negatives. And they're big negatives, no doubt.

The question is, do I think he can turn it around? And I'm not sold one way or the other. I'm less sold that he can do it than I was a year or two ago, but at the same time, his recruiting is picking up, and I think the talent level has been the main negative.

So if he can increase the talent while at the very least keeping the positives we've seen, some of those negatives should turn around. But if next year's team still struggles like this, then it's probably time to make a move.

That's the problem with the stansbury fanatics left here... Not bashing ray = we think ray is john wooden. Some of us just aren't as hasty to pull the plug. Some of us want to give ray his final year. None of us are certain ray is the answer

[maroonmania]

We had one losing season and one .500 season under Stans.

And anyone pointing to that 2011-2012 team still winning 20 games is missing the reason that year was so bad. We had won 17 games the year before and were still only a 4 seed (not a 1) in the NIT that year with all that talent.

That was not a 'Well, we're still ok, so we can get better from here' kind of year. That was as good as it was going to get again. We have never had the kind of talent we had on that team. That's why it was such a big year for Stans...and we crashed and burned down the stretch and ended up being an average-at-best SEC team. It wasn't getting better than that going forward. That was our new ceiling.

So pointing to that year saying 'We were still at least playing in the postseason' seems to indicate some belief that we could still be pretty good. But again, that was as good as it was going to get from there. That wasn't an average year under Stans anymore, that was the new ceiling. We had won 17 the year before and would have won probably about 15 or so the next year.

Yea, correct on the seeding, we were a mid-level NIT team by the time it got to that point. I had just remembered we hosted. To the point though, winning 17 games the year before and winning 21 games in 2012 is not a dumpster fire ON THE COURT which was what I was addressing. I know there were big issues off the court that needed addressing and its a shame that Stans would rather "retire" than do that. Just losing Sidney and Bost would have helped on that front though. And yes, we would have been weaker the next year under Stans, but not as weak as we were with Ray because Rodney Hood and Josh Gray IMO would have also been on that team. Also, Lewis and Steele would not have fallen out of favor and Stans would have recruited his way back to another very competitive team by the next year, its just what he did. And I will also agree that barely making the NCAA tourney every now and then was probably Stans' ceiling going forward but that is about the most I ever see Ray doing either if even that. Off the court are our only improvements with the coaching change at this point. But hey, we play hard.

Will just add though that I was on the fence when we got rid of Stans so I wasn't upset about it, just think the hire we made wasn't the right one at the time. Still don't understand why a guy like Kermit Davis with a good coaching HC record and MSU ties wasn't given more consideration if we were just going to hire some unknown staff member off a lower tier ACC basketball program.

[smootness]

So you agree that barely making the NCAA Tournament was the new ceiling for the program, and you're ok with that?

As has been stated way more times than should have been necessary, getting rid of Stans is a different argument than hiring Ray. If you don't think Ray is the guy, fine. But that doesn't mean we should have kept Stans.

If you think we should have kept Stans, given what you just said, I'm not sure what to say. We certainly wouldn't accept that from any of our other athletic programs.

It's also funny, btw, that you think getting rid of Bost would have helped the off-court issues while also bringing in Gray and keeping Lewis.

And yes, 21 wins with the talent we had was a dumpster fire. I don't care if you're a 4 seed in the NIT with ridiculous talent or a 13-win team with no talent. They're both embarrassing, unacceptable, and not enjoyable.

[maroonmania]

So you agree that barely making the NCAA Tournament was the new ceiling for the program, and you're ok with that?.

I'm becoming more OK with it. If we are not willing to recruit in basketball the way things are done now the new ceiling may be the NIT.

As has been stated way more times than should have been necessary, getting rid of Stans is a different argument than hiring Ray. If you don't think Ray is the guy, fine. But that doesn't mean we should have kept Stans.

Like I said, I was on the fence. I had no doubts about getting rid of Sherrill, Croom and Polk at the times we did, but I knew in basketball if we made the wrong move we could slide down even from where we were.

If you think we should have kept Stans, given what you just said, I'm not sure what to say. We certainly wouldn't accept that from any of our other athletic programs.

I was OK making the change but not if we didn't have a solid, high quality to hire to replace him with.

It's also funny, btw, that you think getting rid of Bost would have helped the off-court issues while also bringing in Gray and keeping Lewis.

Sidney and Bost had major issues with team chemistry; Lewis smoked weed but I don't know that he had problems with teammates, Gray doesn't seem to be destroying LSU.

And yes, 21 wins with the talent we had was a dumpster fire. I don't care if you're a 4 seed in the NIT with ridiculous talent or a 13-win team with no talent. They're both embarrassing, unacceptable, and not enjoyable.

Well at least I got to enjoy a great pre-season tournament championship and a rise to 15th in the rankings before all fell apart. This year the season essentially ended in December before the SEC even started.

[smootness]

Well at least I got to enjoy a great pre-season tournament championship and a rise to 15th in the rankings before all fell apart. This year the season essentially ended in December before the SEC even started.

If watching a team with unlimited potential crashing and burning and losing to legitimately bad teams is something you like, then go ahead.

Again, no one is saying that what we have currently is good enough. Literally no one. Not one single person.