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

[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.

[Eric Nies Grind Time]

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.

[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....

[smootness]

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

Seriously?

[smootness]

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.

[TheRef]

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

Pitino!!!!*****************

[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.

[smootness]

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.

[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.

[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.

[smootness]

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.

[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.

[PMDawg]

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***********

[MarketingBully01]

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

[smootness]

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.

[DawgInMemphis]

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.

[engie]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[engie]

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.

[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.

[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.