I've heard this said: "it doesn't make sense to hire a coach who hasn't had success in the NCAA Tournament when you just fired Rick Stansbury for that". Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Wrong #1: Rick Stansbury "retired".
Wrong #2: Stans shouldn't have been fired for his NCAA Tournament record. As I laid out in all my #FireStansbury mumbo jumbo over the last few weeks, it was the lack of effort, apathetic fan base, mediocre expectations, excuses, etc. that were reason enough for Stansbury's dismissal.
Wrong #3: Why should/would/could we expect a coach to take a mid-major to the Sweet 16, or Elite 8 before he gets the job at MSU? Here's why MSU is more attractive than a mid-major: the SEC, the $$$$, the status, the million dollar pad in the hills of Starkvegas. Ok, that was a bit much, but seriously, the SEC and the players you can recruit because of it is the reason why they would come to State. So, MSU should be making the Sweet 16 every now and then. When a mid-major does it, that's like the Final Four for a BCS school. The fact that a coach can even make the big dance on a somewhat regular basis at a lower-tier program is cause to hire them.