Coach, your view about Stansbury and Donovan, please

[1MSUDawgFan]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

 

[VegasDawg13]

We missed the NIT in 2005. Florida was in the hunt for the NCAAT until the last weekend of the season. We then missed the tournament the next year; I'd be willing to bet that Florida returns next year.

It's not exactly the same thing.</p>

 

[dawgstudent]

Florida is coming off 2 straight National Championships. Can't really compare in that regard either.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

it's not like he didn't have younger players. They just went pro.

And they'll be back in the sweet 16 next year.

 

[Coach34]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

Ricky dropped and had a losing record the year after. Fla didnt exactly have losing record- they won 20 games. They were also 8-8 in the SEC. (And before you say they played a weak schedule, you need to look at the one we played that year). He had them in contention for an NCAA bid until last night. It was obvious we werent going to sniff the NCAA in Dec under Ricky two years ago.

There is no comparision Meo, Eddie Munster had a much better season than Ricky did in 2005...but its not a success though, because he is headed to the NIT</p>

 

[cutbaitdawg]

nm

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

There is no comparision Meo, Eddie Munster had a much better season than Ricky did in 2005...but its not a success though, because he is headed to the NIT

And that's why I asked you. Because you say it wasn't a success. I never said Stansubury was successful after the 2005 season. I just wanted you to explain the criticism of Stansbury when one of your 3 heroes (Brady and Gottfried a being the others) had the exact same thing happen to him. I'm sure Donovan would even tell you basketball is a game of cycles. Noone is going to be at that level every single year. Stansbury is no exception. And you know what? Donovan isn't either.</p>

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

We missed the NIT in 2006.

 

[hatfieldms]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

You do realize that Florida had 3players on the SEC all freshman team dont you?</p>

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

Most of the talent were juniors. And he knew they were going pro even the year before. Coach would have criticized Stansbury to a fault if that happened at MSU.

And if you tihnk they will be in the Sweet 16 next year I feel sorry for you.</p>

 

[Coach34]

just like this season is the 2007-2008 season

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

You do realize that Florida had 3players on the SEC all freshman team dont you?</p>

</p>We had the #6 or so recruiting class in the nation for 2006?

 

[hatfieldms]

Coach, you have said here recently that you fault Stansbury for recruiting and having such a big dropoff after the 2005 season. What do you have to say about Donovan's recruiting at Florida, seeing as he is in the same boat we were after the 2005 season and lost all 5 starters? 5 new starters and Florida likely doesn't make the dance.

What say you, Coach? Are you going to contradict yourself aGAIN?

You do realize that Florida had 3players on the SEC all freshman team dont you?</p>

We had the #6 or so recruiting class in the nation for 2006?

I never said our recruiting dropped. You are the one saying Florida's has dropped</p>

 

[Stormrider81]

The comparison here isn't really valid. Yes, we lost our starters from the previous season and they did too. However, a few differences appear. One, they are coming off 2 straight national titles. Two, they nearly made the NCAAs and will make the NIT. We missed postseason play altogether. Third, they will make the NCAAs next season, it took us two seasons after the 2005 season.

The only statement we can make here in light of that comparison is that it is hard to make it back to the NCAAs after losing your starting lineup. In every other way in this comparison Billy Donovan has the upper hand over Stans. That's not a criticism of Stans at all, but rather it is a statement of fact.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

I never said our recruiting dropped. You are the one saying Florida's has dropped</p>

I think his point is that the year after Donovan had a bunch of juniors leave early (which he knew was going to happen), he has been forced to play a lot of freshmens this year. Coach has blasted Stans for not balancing out his classes better by harping on him having to play so many freshmens during the 05-06 season. Donovan was in the same boat this year; however, he had more success this season with it than Stans did that year. </p>

In that regard, I think his point has some merit. Donovan's recruiting balance was off some, especially knowing for two seasons that he was going to lose most if not all of those starters from the 2 NC teams before they graduated.</p>(typo edit)

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

I said Coach criticizes Stansbury for something that he wouldn't criticize Donovan for. Basically it's the same thing. Before the season, Donovan knew he wasn't going to have any starters returning. He didn't know he might be on the bubble.

I am only pointing out yet another hypocritical view of Coach's.

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

I never said our recruiting dropped. You are the one saying Florida's has dropped</p>

I think his point is that the year after Donovan had a bunch of juniors leave early (which he knew was going to happen), he has been forced to play a lot of freshmens this year. Coach has blasted Stans for not balancing out his classes better by harping on him having to play so many freshmens during the 05-06 season. Donovan was in the same boat this year; however, he had more success this season with it than Stans did that year.</p>

In that regard, I think his point has some merit. Donovan's recruiting balance was off some, especially knowing for two seasons that he was going to lose most if not all of those starters from the 2 NC teams before they graduated.</p>(typo edit)

</p>Thank you. That is exactly what I am saying. Coach would blast Stansbury (and has on this very subject) yet refuses to hold Donovan up to the same standard.

 

[VegasDawg13]

It's still not the same thing because Donovan has built his program up to a point where they can reload and immediately compete for a tournament berth with a team full of freshmen and sophomores. We aren't at that point and probably never will be; therefore, we have to make sure we balance our recruiting.

 

[Coach34]

I said Coach criticizes Stansbury for something that he wouldn't criticize Donovan for. Basically it's the same thing. Before the season, Donovan knew he wasn't going to have any starters returning. He didn't know he might be on the bubble.

I am only pointing out yet another hypocritical view of Coach's.

</p>How is my view hypocritical? Donovan's team went 8-8 and won 20 games. They wont make the NCAA, but he put a pretty damn good team out on the floor.

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

So how is that good? If it isn't successful, then how can you justify it?

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

How is my view hypocritical? Donovan's team went 8-8 and won 20 games. They wont make the NCAA, but he put a pretty damn good team out on the floor.

</p>Your view is hypocritical because you would never describe a team from MSU led by Stans the same way you just described FL, if their results were identical.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

We have a winner. Stans would be criticized for rolling up plastic wins against an incredibly weak OOC schedule and only going .500 in conference in a down year and a lackluster performance & pathetic exit in the 1st round of the conf. tourney against a team with a sub .500 conf record.

 

[Stormrider81]

with these results had they happened in 2006. The guy lost all of his starters, won 20 games, went 8-8 in the SEC, and nearly made it back to the NCAAs. In 2006 we went 15-15 in the regular season, 5-11 in the SEC, and totally missed postseason play. It's not anywhere close to the same scenario. One team was on the NCAA bubble the other was on the NIT bubble. That's a pretty big difference. Peaches is pretty unfair to Stans most of the time but come on guys. He predicted a 1-8 start that year, so I really doubt he would have been peeved at 20 wins and a 8-8 SEC record.

I can't believe I'm defending Peaches.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

Florida (07-08 from Kenpom.com)
21-11
8-8
72 (Overall RPI)
86 (Overall SOS)
80 (Non Conf RPI)
274 (Non Conf SOS)

Mississippi St.
15-15
5-11
113 (Overall RPI)
53 (Overall SOS)
85 (Non Conf RPI)
119 (Non Conf SOS)

So we went 15-15 & 5-11 against the 53rd overall & 119 OOC schedule while Florida went 21-11 & 8-8 against the 86th overall and 274 OOC schedule. Does anyone not believe we might have won 3 to 5 more games OOC against the JR high teams UF played this year? I will admit our OOC schedule in 05-06 was weak, but UF's was on lifesupport with someone reaching for the damn plug. I will readily admit that Donovan is a good coach and did a decent job this year, it is just not as great a job as everyone wants to make it out to be if you look at the numbers. Also, UF won exactly 2 SEC games against teams with a winning conf record, both at home. Facts are facts, what Donovan did this year was really nothing special.

 

[Stormrider81]

We were terrible. We were relying on people like Jamall Edmonson to be starters and carry the load. Rhodes didn't start playing really well until SEC play. Gordon started but was still adjusting. The Delks came off the bench early and eventually became starters. We lacked experience and what experienced players we had weren't starting material. Even with a weaker sched I find it hard to believe we would have won 3-5 more games.

The second half of the SEC schedule we hit our stride and went 4-4. Gordon and the Delks were starting, Slater was moved to the post, and Rhodes was dominating. That year was about getting our freshmens adjusted and rebuilding for the next year. The difference between us and Florida is our players needed a long time to get adjusted in order to win 15 games overall and 5 SEC games while Florida's won 20 games and 8 SEC games right off the bat and will be in the NIT. Florida reloads easier than we do.

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

but I don't believe for a second Peaches would have described it that way. Cowtown had it right when he said Peaches would have blown off any level of success by Stansbury as "rolling up plastic wins against an incredibly weak OOC schedule and only going .500 in conference in a down year and a lackluster performance & pathetic exit in the 1st round of the conf. tourney against a team with a sub .500 conf record". It's like I'm actually reading a Peaches post when I read that line.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

as it turns out, we went 10-3 in OOC, so we could have only won 3 more at the most in our OOC. However, we did struggle mightily in the opening of conference play. However, of our first 8 games in SEC play, we only played 2 teams with a losing conf record for the year & 1 of those was 7-9 Vandy. Also, over the season, we only beat 2 teams with winning SEC records (Ark & Bama), both at home, just like UF. </p>

I'm still not disagreeing that UF did decently this season based on what they had, but they padded their schedule with 13 OOC wins vs. only 2 losses against some extremely weak teams. My argument is that they may not be quite as good as their record suggests. Two wins against SEC teams with winning records is pretty average. Stans by no means had a great year in 05-06, I just think Donovan's record is pretty inflated this year between the OOC and 6 of 8 wins against losing conf record SEC teams.</p>

Florida's OOC schedule with the teams rank in parethesis next to their name.</p>

 

[Coach34]

but I don't believe for a second Peaches would have described it that way. Cowtown had it right when he said Peaches would have blown off any level of success by Stansbury as "rolling up plastic wins against an incredibly weak OOC schedule and only going .500 in conference in a down year and a lackluster performance & pathetic exit in the 1st round of the conf. tourney against a team with a sub .500 conf record". It's like I'm actually reading a Peaches post when I read that line.

and you fools are mid-thread with replies as to what I supposedly would have said. Here is what I actually DID say:
</p>
I said it was smart of Ricky to have a very weak OOC schedule that season. Its what was needed to work the young guys in. Where me and the board differed was many of you said "Ricky will have us dancing again, he is a great coach and will get it done". I however, noticing we had trouble beating Colgate of whoever the hell it was, knew that team couldnt bridge that gap quick enough. We also had a tough SEC schedule to start with, and thus the 1-8 prediction came out.

Could Ricky have done better than 15-15? Sure, I think he should have. But as to how he tried to do it, I have no problems with. It was the right path to take, just like Donovan did this season. They had chances to get a couple of big wins and couldnt pull it off. But Donovan > Ricky. There is no disputing that and no hypocritical judgements

 

[Stormrider81]

I predicted a 6-10 SEC record and a NIT bid that year. I find it hard to believe anyone thought we were going Dancing again.

 

[Coach34]

I predicted a 6-10 SEC record and a NIT bid that year. I find it hard to believe anyone thought we were going Dancing again.

</p>after 4 straight Dances, the wool was so thick around here it was insane. And MeoCowStanza was the worst of all. More than half the sentiment around here was that Ricky's would make it 5 straight due to super-duper recruiting class. They were calling it the MSU version of the Fab 5....

 

[Stormrider81]

I was sold on the NIT being the best we would do. I wasn't too disappointed in missing it, we still finished the season pretty strong and our team grew up a lot. Now last year I was disappointed when we didn't make the Dance. I was disappointed the Delks left. This year, however, I'm geniunely surprised by how they've played in the past 20 games. This team could be dangerous with the right draw in the NCAAs.</p>

 

[MadDawg.sixpack]

Of all the people, and there are a LOT of them, that ridicule every word that comes out of your mouth, I am not one of them. I've even agreed with you on some things in the past (JWS). This just is not one of them. That doesn't make me a stalker. My posts are my opinion of how you would treat Stans in a similar situation. My opinion is based on the fact that fact nor reason rarely come into play in your diatribes against "Ricky". You are overly predictable when it comes to Stans, and some of us can see that. Of course with your recent admission that most of what you write on here is just to stir people up, I'm astonished that any of us even read your posts anymore.

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

I think Donovan is a hell of a coach and overall better than Stansbury. But he isn't going to come to Starkville. I also acknowledge that Stansbury is the best coach in our school history and don't discount everything he does like Coach does.

I also don't throw around childish names like Coach does either, but I am not 11 either.

 

[Stormrider81]

that Stansbury is the best basketball coach we've ever had. Some will argue for McCarthy, but he only made it to the NCAAs once whereas Rick is about to make his 5th. Stansbury has now taken us to more NCAAs than all MSU coaches combined, and he had a hand in others as an assitant. The proof is in the pudding, the guy has won a crapload of games, has won SEC hardware, and has gotten us to the NCAAs consistently.

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

was to point out yet another hypocritical viewpoint of Coach's. It wasn't to say that Florida is bad or DOnovan is bad or we are bad or Stansbury is bad. It was to say that Coach blames Stansbury for not balancing recruiting and Donovan did the same thing, yet he won't criticize him for the very same thing he criticized Stansbury for.

I made my point. Some on here got it. Good job. This thread can now be closed.

 

[patdog]

You can't compare NCAA tournament appearances between McCarthy and Stansbury. When McCarthy was coaching, you had to win your conference to play in the NCAA tournament. Also, we turned down 3 prior NCAA tournament bids under McCarthy before finally accepting the last one. However, McCarthy coached at a time when SEC basketball was nothing but an afterthought for every school except Kentucky. Sometime around the time he was coaching, Mississippi actually promoted a coach from head basketball coach to assistant football coach.</p>

 

[1MSUDawgFan]

alot since the McCarthy era. Shot clock, 3 point line, scholarship limitations, etc. Not to mention what you have just stated, that you had to win your conference. I can see an argument for McCarthy, but in my mind it's Stansbury. If you chose McCarthy, I couldn't blame you. But Stansbury is definitely one of the best coaches we've ever had. That would be hard to argue. Coach will never admit it though.

 

[Coach34]

msudawgfan is stalking...not you