This sounds nothing like Kennedy.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/24592329/new-faces-new-places-why-did-buzz-williams-leave-marquette-for-vtu

Kennedy can't name the Presidents in order?

Buss Williams is awesome.

Buzz is not coming to A&M.

You have any other awesome stories about guys who are not going to coach at A&M?

Would have been excited if we had hired Buzz.

Also think there is a high probability that the next A&m basketball head coach is now already on staff.

Waffle House reference.


We really blew an opportunity.

Just. Stop.

quote:

---

Also think there is a high probability that the next A&m basketball head coach is now already on staff.

---

Pump, what makes you so PUMPED about the hciw?

I'm a big fan of adding Stansbury to the staff, but I'd tap the brakes on the HCIW talk. If there is change, it will be total change.

Okey dokey guys. We'll see how it plays out.

[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 6/22/2014 4:03p).]

The hciw theory is so ridiculous that if it actually came to be it would prove that our current administration is useless.

Some of y'all are just *****es to be *****es. Stansbury is a good coach and will be the next HC.

quote:

---

The hciw theory is so ridiculous that if it actually came to be it would prove that our current administration is useless.

---

Some guys who follow this stuff more closely than most like Sandhop seem to be leaning towards a possible HCIW theory.

Not sure why some posters seem to want to stick their head in the sand about the possibility, even though there are several potential clues that Stansbury is now in pole position to potentially be our next head coach. And calling another poster names like PUMPkinhead isn't going to change a dang thing about the clues out there. Let me refresh some of them real quick:

---

You have a current head coach with a health issue and on the 'hot seat'. You have an assistant head coach hired who was a former SEC head coach that won 64% of his games, with 6 NCAA appearances, three SEC conference titles, and five NIT bids over a 14 year period.

That head coach was making about 1.5 million per year at MSU when he retired two years ago. Now he is on your bench next season at A&M so cheaply that the sum of his salary plus Kennedy's salary is about equal to what he was making in Starksville.

So you significantly upgraded your basketball staff immediately, but were able to do it for at least next season on the cheap (cheap! cheap! cheap!) while waiting for the projected extra 10-14 million per year revenue from the college football playoffs and new SEC TV deals to start kicking in (and while Kyle Field renovation is still going on).

Meanwhile, Kennedy staying keeps some continuity with the current roster and helps keep the entire 2014 recruiting class intact (except for the fallout with Jamal Jones). The new assistant coach with a significant head coach's resume can begin transitioning in, allowing some time for the current Kennedy players to get familiar with him while Kennedy is still around. The new guy also heavily focuses on bringing in guys for the 2015 class & beyond who are convinced by a 'HCIW' recruiting message that there is some decent stability in the coaching staff.

And we have already seen Example #1 of just that. In the very first month after he is hired, the new assistant coach plays a pivotal role in helping land a 5-star rated transfer who was being advised in his transfer decision that was coming down to either A&M or LSU by a prominent AAU coach (that AAU coach came with the recruit on his visit to campus).

It was reported by recruiting services that the recruit liked A&M, the coaches, and the other players, but that there was a major concern regarding the coaching staff's stability, as the recruit would likely have to sit out a year.
The new assistant coach took the lead on closing the deal with the recruit and apparently any such concerns were satisfactorily addressed to the recruit, his family, and the AAU coach because the recruit then shortly committed to A&M over LSU.

So next year is played out on the cheap with hope that the new coaching muscle plus some new players starts showing real signs of a turnaround. Recruiting is somewhat strengthened & stabilized because the new assistant head coach is not only a good recruiter per his resume and has a fresh set of contacts to work with, but also because he can much more easily sell an idea that recruits will play for him in the future than the old assistant coach could.

If next year goes horribly and turns out the new assistant coach sucks and is not impressing, then the AD still has options to f%$%^ the whole plan and at minimum they skated by another year without rocking the boat too much financially (and without firing a coach with health problems with 2 years still remaining on his contract).

---

So...is this really a 'ridiculous' theory? As I said, there are many posters besides myself who feel the Stansbury hire was somewhat unusual.

I'm not saying that I agree with this kind of play vs. hiring a guy like Buzz Williams.

But if you are really a poster who thinks there is no way in hell that there is not some form of a 'HCIW' situation potentially going on...and that any other posters who are suspicious about the arrangement are just being nimwits...well I just don't know what else more I can say to those types folks other than I guess you'll be floored with surprise if Stansbury is ultimately promoted.


[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 6/22/2014 8:41p).]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4

There ya go again.

Jml, as I said, I am far from the only person who has been suspicious about the Stansbury hire. I suspect some of the posters who are trying to drumbeat that his hire was just your typical assistant coach hire, some of those same people were perhaps on TexAgs the day after Cyp was let going opining that no way any assistant coach worth a flip would come here given the circumstances. did you post an opinion that day? Should we check?
And yet now here is a hire like Stansbury and there is nothing curious about it?

Okey dokey.

So we're saying a BMA communicated to BK to start training his replacement?


Sure, that happens in the tech industry, where I know directly of cases in which computer programmers trained guys from India before relinquishing their positions.


It's ludicrous on so many levels...but in an odd way, it wouldn't completely surprise me given the dysfunctional nature of the AD and A&M higher administration.


Not that if BK were fired, Stansbury would not be a viable option, I think he would be.


But really, hiring a HCIW without a past link to the program is beyond Aggie stupid, particularly when there were high profile HCs in Buzz and Pearl out there for the taking. DISCOUNTED.



Suspending Disbelief: The New Aggie Basketball Tradition

As I've said before. Stansbury was out of the coaching business, and like many a retiree, he want back in from the slow life. Stansbury would like to coach again in the SEC. AC positions opened at Mizzou, TN, Auburn...but each with new coaches with support from the fan base. Stansbury sees an opportunity to contribute to a poorly coached team with a HC who is facing a make or break year. In either circumstance, opportunity is presented.


If A&M turns it around, Stansbury gets a lion's share of the credit. If we're mired in the lower half to middle of the SEC again and BK is fired, Stansbury just passes his resume down the hall.


Just accept we got lucky. I could see a number of circumstances
that result in Stansbury being a leading candidate on April 1, 2015, but the notion that a HCIW upon hire would be laughable...at any other school or time.


Heck, in the case of Muschamp as HCIW at Texas, there were negotiations for years, and title with no firm timetable... and he left anyway!... to become Ron Zook II at Florida.



[This message has been edited by jml2621 (edited 6/22/2014 9:48p).]

jml, I actually agree with much of your last post. I am personally suspicious that there is a HCIW door that is now open, but whether the situation is formal or informal I don't have any sort of guess on really.

Don't even care really whether that is the case or not. As I have said, regardless of what happens to Kennedy, I'll just be somewhat surprised if Stansbury is not still on the A&M bench in the 2015-2016 season.

[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 6/22/2014 10:11p).]

So y'all are Ok with Billy Kennedy choosing his successor?

I mean, Kennedy did make the selection, right?








[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 6/22/2014 10:10p).]

quote:

---

Some of y'all are just *****es to be *****es. Stansbury is a good coach and will be the next HC.

---

if that is the case then he should be the HC now. instead we have to suffer through a lame duck season of BK while BK and Stansbury fight for control. instead we have to suffer through another season of dropping attendance. instead we have to suffer through another year of an incompetent athletic director who is afraid to make tough decisions.

hey method man, instead of calling people b*tches, why dont you answer how any of the above scenarios is better with kennedy as HC next year instead of with Stansbury as HC.

Who hired Stansbury? Can anyone answer that?

Pablo, I'm sure Stansbury took the job without once speaking with Hyman directly regarding the stability of the situation and the longer term outlook.


[This message has been edited by Pumpkinhead (edited 6/22/2014 10:17p).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Some of y'all are just *****es to be *****es. Stansbury is a good coach and will be the next HC.

---

if that is the case then he should be the HC now. instead we have to suffer through a lame duck season of BK while BK and Stansbury fight for control. instead we have to suffer through another season of dropping attendance. instead we have to suffer through another year of an incompetent athletic director who is afraid to make tough decisions.

hey method man, instead of calling people b*tches, why dont you answer how any of the above scenarios is better with kennedy as HC next year instead of with Stansbury as HC.

---

I can't answer that. I wanted Kennedy gone like all of you. I am not far from y'all but if you can chill for a second you see that with this asst to be HC we keep all our players (that we want) and we still get Standbury as HC. I would've preferred Buzz or Pearl, but I am happy with Stansbury.

It's kind of hard to know what players Kennedy wants with the revolving door and all.

quote:

---

Who hired Stansbury? Can anyone answer that?

---

you wont get an answer for that question.

What makes the HCIW theory plausible is BK's health. It is so plausible, it begs any other explanation for it happening almost to the point of expecting this sort of thing to happen if a Stansbury was available.

The only scenarios I see it NOT being the case (both unlikely) is having such a disastrous season next year that it eliminates not only BK, but also Stanbury from consideration OR that we have such a good season and BK's health is not as big of a problem as we seem to think, that BK stays on until Stansbury gets another HC gig elsewhere. My hunch is that we have improvement this year and that it is a transition year (possibly 2 years) from BK to Stansbury.

quote:

---

What makes the HCIW theory plausible is BK's health. It is so plausible, it begs any other explanation for it happening almost to the point of expecting this sort of thing to happen if a Stansbury was available. .

---

that's a pretty STRONG opinion.
So you think that BK and Hyman sat down at the end of the year and BK said, "i'm getting sicker. not too sick to coach our turn around next year and cash those checks, but i think we need to hire someone who can be the next coach, but is willing to sit on the bench for one season as my assistant."

and then you think that Hyman agreed to it, instead of asking billy for more info about his worsening medical condition, or for suggesting that billy resign, take the $2mil still owed and focus his time on his family and his treatment.

do you think billy's health is so bad that he will be able to finish this season? or is there a chance he steps down some time early into the season?

I think you picked the least plausible thing and posted it like it's what others might be thinking.

quote:

---

quote:
Who hired Stansbury? Can anyone answer that?

you wont get an answer for that question.

---

I know and it is mind boggling, and another bizarre chapter in this clusterf### of a basketball program








[This message has been edited by Captain Pablo (edited 6/23/2014 7:16a).]

quote:

---

Pablo, I'm sure Stansbury took the job without once speaking with Hyman directly regarding the stability of the situation and the longer term outlook.

---

That's not what I asked

Who chose Stansbury? Was it BK? BK chose his successor?

Was it Hyman? Hyman hired a HCIW and plopped him on BK's bench?

Does anybody else see how crazy that is?

Given the situation that we have a flailing head coach diagnosed with Parkinson's , I'd say the situation was already crazy.

quote:

---

I think you picked the least plausible thing and posted it like it's what others might be thinking.

---

i've simply asked all of you that are promoting the HCIW theory both here and on Liucci's board to fully explain your HCIW theory. If you cant answer Captn Pablo's simple questions, and if you dont know whether BK supported or opposed the Stansbury hiring, then you are simply WISHING for the HCIW theory to be true.

quote:

---

i've simply asked all of you that are promoting the HCIW theory both here and on Liucci's board to fully explain your HCIW theory. If you cant answer Captn Pablo's simple questions

---

You have had the theory explained to you multiple times by multiple people, including people like SandHop, in terms of how Stansbury's hire could be perceived as a potential 'win' for all parties (Hyman, Kennedy, Stansbury). Not sure what more you are looking for.

And yes, it is a theory. But there are certainly reasons to be suspicious that there is an open door now for Stansbury to be the next coach.

And Captain Pablo's last question is not 'simple'. People who are really in the know are not openly talking about what process occurred, so there are no explicit little details like who contacted who first and what was specifically said between Hyman/Kennedy/Stansbury during conversations in the preceding weeks or months before Stansbury was hired. If you are beating on the board hoping for details like that, you'll probably be waiting a long time.

The only thing that really matters from a fan perspective looking forward is that Stansbury is now on the bench as an assistant, and it was an unusually good hire given the circumstances. And it is an unusual situation having a head coach with a Parkinsons diagnosis. That head coach now has 2 years remaining on his contract.

stop with the lies, you jerk.

nobody, not hop, especially not you has answered whether hyman forced this on kennedy or kennedy suggested it, or any theory whatsoever on how this actually went down from the a&m side. EVERY time it has been posed to you, you duck the question and try and turn it around into "why would stansbury take the job otherwise".

Yes, 22 et al, its so hard to believe that there could be transition strategy going on with Hyman and BK coordinating it. From the Michael J. Fox Parkinsons Foundation website:


" *Stress reduction is a must — stress worsens every Parkinson’s disease symptom."

Going on year 4 with as much stress as I can believe you could have in any job, especially with such a great fan base as A&M. Or maybe it's just texags that brings out the best in everyone. Yea, sarcasm. Its so hard to imagine a doctor telling his patient "it's time". Ruff tuff real stuff...........

Twenty two, I wrote an essay a few posts above on one possible theory from hyman's perspective on why the situation might be viewed as a win. Yes, it is only a theory based on circumstantial evidence. What more do you want somebody like me to say? Instead of calling people jerks (not sure why you react like that), if you really want the truth then go seek out some people who might really know. I am sure not one of them, but I have bought into at least some aspects of the Stansbury hire which seems plausible to me.