And hire some unorthodox style of offensive or defensive coach. I personally was never on board for getting rid of Stans, but that is now water under the bridge. So instead of trying to compete with the big boys with the same style of play with lesser talent, why not go triple option or air raid version of basketball. Whatever that is now a days. In the likes of the old Princeton offense or the old 40 minutes of hell defense. Anyway the point is to be different in hopes of success against the big boys.
Since we went gimmicky with Leach bin football why don’t we go the same route in
- Thread starter bulldoghair
- Start date
We have more talent than 90% of the teams we play in basketball. Getting talent has never been the issue.
There are some really good mid major coaches that would love an opportunity like Mississippi State (if they didn’t have to work for a budget cutting micromanaging AD).
why do State fans keep saying this? How is basketball talent defined?
It's like JoMo and the 85 Bears. Howland sucks but he is not working with the 95-96 Bulls.
OM is more talented than MSU this year.
No OM isn't more talented. Now I agree that our talent is overrated by state fans.
Losing to Ole Miss shouldn’t be the litmus test for anything. Not competing better overall and just being not fun to watch/having no fan support should be considered along with overall results
I'll never get the Stans love. Was all the NITs and early exits from the tourney? Once the divisions went away, so did Stans.
MSU is significantly more talented than OM. If you drafted 10 players to start a team from the 2 rosters, 6 or 7 of them would be MSU players. It’s hard to win on the road in the SEC, you were missing your best big, and Matthew Murrell decided to have the game of his life. MSU is a better team and that will show across the SEC schedule.
If you make the right mid-major hire like Alabama did with Nate Oats, you can get good in a hurry. Outside looking in, the biggest thing MSU needs right now is a coach that will make basketball exciting and fun again. The Hump used to be a monster advantage, and it’s not even close anymore. The most dangerous thing for a program is for the fan base to be ambivalent and disengaged. That’s close to where MSU basketball is, right now.
Someone that pushes the tempo and shoots 3’s would make games fun. You can’t win them all, but you can at least make it fun to watch.
Someone that pushes the tempo and shoots 3’s would make games fun. You can’t win them all, but you can at least make it fun to watch.
They showed a stat last night that said we are 321 out of 358 teams in the country in pace of play. So we play a boring, slow, plodding style and we’re not even that good at doing it. No wonder fans don’t show up. Also, Howland has done nothing to get the fans engaged at all. Bruce Pearl, for all his faults, sells the **** out of Auburn basketball. He has a good team, but also works to promote the team to students and fans. That’s a big reason why Auburn has the electric atmosphere they do at home games, even during Christmas break. Howland does none of that. He’s a boring man who plays a boring style of basketball and the fans don’t really care about it.
Watched a little last night for the first time in a while. My fairly objective impression was our players don't give a ****.
Not only that, we can’t shoot the 3 and when we do get to the rim, we 17n miss!!
We have improved FT shooting, I’ll give him that. But our offense doesn’t get us to the line enough because that weave isn’t fooling anybody these days. Opponents know that we are going to throw the ball around for 25 seconds and either turn the ball over or take a bad shot.
N Brooks is better than any center on MSU roster. Murrell is a better more consistent shooter than any Guard that State has.
The Murrell that played every game before last night wasn’t. He got hot. It happens. Obviously I hope it continues, and he’s very talented, but he was averaging 7-8 points a game
I seriously believe this team would be better if Rick Ray was the coach and that is saying something. Ray couldn't recruit at all but even he was a better floor coach than Howland
It could be because Stans owned the Rebels. And only Kentucky and Fla.had a winning record against Stans. We also had good players that were fun to watch an d the Hump was a hell of a place to play. I think Stans had a better winning % than any coach.
Stands was great when he had talented, high character leaders like LRob, Bowers, Z, and Power. He got in trouble when he strayed from that formula.
The problem with most State fans is they have never learned to hold their nose, bite their tongue and tell Keenum to fire Bracky or they will pull funding. I would love to have Will Wade or Bruce Pearl!!! I can forgive just like the NCAA can!
It'll go down as the biggest mistake in MSU basketball history. Decade later, still have not recovered. Worse than Ole Miss firing Cutcliffe.
This^. During the Howland era, we seem to be picked to win more than we're not. We didn't lose to Southern University, Missouri-Kansas City, UCF, LeHigh, East Tennessee State, Liberty (x2), Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, Dayton, Colorado State, or Ole Miss because the other team had better talent.
Bama did hire and fire two "can't miss" coaches after Gottfried to get Nate Oats. The SEC is littered with hiring then firing successful mid-major coaches. Much bigger and richer schools like Georgia and Florida (since Donovan) can't find good basketball coaches to stay and win.
That was my reasoning for keeping Stans, but after the 2012 collapse (started out 21-5 and didn't make the NCAA tourney) I was ready to replace him. Now I'm ready to replace Howland, but there is no guarantee the next coach will be better.
Last edited:
I was trying to imagine a leach basketball offense ....
a pg standing at the top of the key, stagnant. 20 passes around the 3pt line while others are cutting to the basket over and over until a pass is completed inside the paint for a short shot.
No dribble drives allowed.
a pg standing at the top of the key, stagnant. 20 passes around the 3pt line while others are cutting to the basket over and over until a pass is completed inside the paint for a short shot.
No dribble drives allowed.
Last edited:
He was trying to improve talent and get to the next level (what everyone was bitching about). to do that he signed Sidney--If they had left Stans alone--he would have recovered and we still would be a top 5 team in the SEC. Remember we had no practice facility and Stans raised the money for the one we have now--But MSU booted his *** for ole Ricky Ray--great 17ing decision.
Absolutely. It’s not an exact science. You can screw it up, easy. And a lot of times it comes down to the whims of a teenager. Heck, Kermit has finished 2nd for about four 5-stars. Give him just one of those guys and it potentially changes his tenure. But he didn’t, and that’s what he’s paid to do.
Similar, but I was thinking it would be more like the old women's "6 player" basketball, but we would run it with 5 players. The point guard NEVER crosses the half court line. In bounds pass to the point at half court, then he passes to another player running their route. Wherever they catch the ball, they shoot from there. We never dribble. We have 4 plays, one for each position besides the point guard, but we practice those 4 plays everyday, so we have them down to a science. Every now and then, we throw a wrinkle in and have one additional pass before the shot or have a play that allows a player (anyone OTHER than the point guard) to dribble. When we do introduce these wrinkles, announcers will fall all over themselves to say this proves that you have to dribble to win in the SEC.
That's a big assumption. Stans was still taking character risks to get more talent. After stans left, we dropped/lost a recruit that ended up at maybe Texas Tech? that already had a gun charge I think?
I do think if Stans could have hit the reset button after his last year and started the team from scratch with just Sword, Gavin Ware, Fred Thomas, and Roquez Johnson, he would have been able to recover the locker room and been good again. But Renardo wasn't the only cancer Stansbury had on the team in later years, and I'm not sure he every would have turned the roster over quickly enough to really clean it up, especially since he wasn't changing his approach in recruiting.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.