Hiring Process Discussion with CC

[captaincrap]

Kansas State is a pretty damned good job to get as your first head coaching gig. There is simply no way that Antigua told Currie no without at least interviewing for the job. Antigua may have wanted more than Currie thought he was worth, but I really doubt he asked for as much as we ended up paying Weber.

Do not know this as fact, but I heard from another source that he said he was not interested.

[captaincrap]

Not defending BW. hiring someone that got fired is black mark, for sure. If this all happens last year, if Frank leaves for Miami and we hire current UI coach oscar Weber, I'd guess there would be a lot less anger. Major difference is that he got canned. Looks bad, no doubt.

And AD's don't usually MAKE people get interested in your job, that isn't how it works. You can follow up several times, sweeten deals, but if a guy says No you have to respect that. You never know when paths cross again. Athletics is a very incestual family -- once you're in it, you just kinda keep pin balling around. So these guys always have one eye on the future.

I would not have been happy with Weber a year ago - it was still clear that he had Illinois on the downward trend, and we shouldn't ignore the last year anyway. I don't understand how athletics being incestual means that Currie has nothing to do with making the KSU job attractive to potential coaches.

Incestual in that you can't be so aggressive that you piss off the person you're after, because odds are you will run into them again. Yes, you sell the job. Yes, you make your best case and sweeten contract offers. But you have to know when to accept a no. Getting a NO happens all the time in coaching searches. That's why ADs often try to conduct them in secret, so that your hire doesn't appear to be merely the first guy that didn't turn it down (which is what happened at Illinois, Miss. St and numerous other places)

[michigancat]

His takeaway was that he thought someone with HC experience could step in and win right away with no learning curve.

And there it is - no one would argue with this, but we dislike the short-sightedness of it. The problem is almost ANYONE that retains much of the roster could win right away with no learning curve. This is why so many of us would rather take a chance that could potentially take us to a level higher than what we believe Weber could with his own recruits, or even beyond what Frank accomplished. This seems like a way for Currie to get a good year or two with Weber on the way out of town.

[michigancat]

Not defending BW. hiring someone that got fired is black mark, for sure. If this all happens last year, if Frank leaves for Miami and we hire current UI coach oscar Weber, I'd guess there would be a lot less anger. Major difference is that he got canned. Looks bad, no doubt.

And AD's don't usually MAKE people get interested in your job, that isn't how it works. You can follow up several times, sweeten deals, but if a guy says No you have to respect that. You never know when paths cross again. Athletics is a very incestual family -- once you're in it, you just kinda keep pin balling around. So these guys always have one eye on the future.

I would not have been happy with Weber a year ago - it was still clear that he had Illinois on the downward trend, and we shouldn't ignore the last year anyway. I don't understand how athletics being incestual means that Currie has nothing to do with making the KSU job attractive to potential coaches.

Incestual in that you can't be so aggressive that you piss off the person you're after, because odds are you will run into them again. Yes, you sell the job. Yes, you make your best case and sweeten contract offers. But you have to know when to accept a no. Getting a NO happens all the time in coaching searches. That's why ADs often try to conduct them in secret, so that your hire doesn't appear to be merely the first guy that didn't turn it down (which is what happened at Illinois, Miss. St and numerous other places)

I understand that, but don't you have to question why a guy like Antigua or Theus wouldn't be interested in coaching this very solid roster? Is it Currie, or is the KSU job that bad?

[captaincrap]

Currie didn't chase off Frank. He did that himself. I would argue Currie was placed in a no win situation with Frank -- would have been actually a tougher PR spot if Frank had stayed because of what would have happened. So if you're blaming Currie for that one, you are misled.

Right.

I can only imagine the public relations nightmare Currie would have had on his hands had Frank Martin remained our coach.

I just love these vague statements after the fact.

Sorry, best I can do here without getting in major hot water. Hopefully can give better detail down the road.

[captaincrap]

Not defending BW. hiring someone that got fired is black mark, for sure. If this all happens last year, if Frank leaves for Miami and we hire current UI coach oscar Weber, I'd guess there would be a lot less anger. Major difference is that he got canned. Looks bad, no doubt.

And AD's don't usually MAKE people get interested in your job, that isn't how it works. You can follow up several times, sweeten deals, but if a guy says No you have to respect that. You never know when paths cross again. Athletics is a very incestual family -- once you're in it, you just kinda keep pin balling around. So these guys always have one eye on the future.

I would not have been happy with Weber a year ago - it was still clear that he had Illinois on the downward trend, and we shouldn't ignore the last year anyway. I don't understand how athletics being incestual means that Currie has nothing to do with making the KSU job attractive to potential coaches.

Incestual in that you can't be so aggressive that you piss off the person you're after, because odds are you will run into them again. Yes, you sell the job. Yes, you make your best case and sweeten contract offers. But you have to know when to accept a no. Getting a NO happens all the time in coaching searches. That's why ADs often try to conduct them in secret, so that your hire doesn't appear to be merely the first guy that didn't turn it down (which is what happened at Illinois, Miss. St and numerous other places)

I understand that, but don't you have to question why a guy like Antigua or Theus wouldn't be interested in coaching this very solid roster? Is it Currie, or is the KSU job that bad?

Who knows -- everybody is different. Some people want to stay in recruiting/living/coaching areas they know and like, some people think poorly of K-State or Manhattan, some like their current job better, others think a better offer might come later.

[0.42]

Not saying you have to love the hire at all. But actively trying to harm K-State because of it seems irrational to me.

Regarding the "celebrating the destruction of property" thing, some dude tried to climb on a sink to turn the volume up for the press conference in the bramlage lobby. He accidentally broke the sink in the process. It was a klutzy moment that was funny. It's unfortunate that the sink got broken in the process, but it wasn't on purpose. Most people don't actually want to destroy or vandalize K-State property.

None of us want to harm K-State in the long run. The feeling is that our voices are not being heard and that the only way we can make a statement is "Don't Give, Don't Go" or participate in active protests at the games. That's not going to change unless there are continued outreach efforts such as yours. We've been marginalized by the 'tucks and the local media for being loud, young, and occasionally obnoxious in our passion for KSU sports. If the athletic department does this, that "us against the world" mentality will only grow. Are we occasionally off-base? Sure. And perhaps we should recognize that more. But when you get treated like the red-headed stepchild of your own fanbase for years on end because you're willing to call bullshit when something doesn't seem right, you're going to become more combative.

Changing subjects: How much smoke is there to the rumors that the other coaches hate Currie?

[DQ12]

CC, it sounds to me like the endgame of what you're saying is that hiring oscar Weber is the best we can do, and any disappointment in the hire and Currie is ill-placed because we don't know how hard Currie's job actually is.  Is that right?

[captaincrap]

His takeaway was that he thought someone with HC experience could step in and win right away with no learning curve.

And there it is - no one would argue with this, but we dislike the short-sightedness of it. The problem is almost ANYONE that retains much of the roster could win right away with no learning curve. This is why so many of us would rather take a chance that could potentially take us to a level higher than what we believe Weber could with his own recruits, or even beyond what Frank accomplished. This seems like a way for Currie to get a good year or two with Weber on the way out of town.

if this is what bothers you about the hire, then the reactions on this board are WAY overboard. That is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and I don't fault you one bit. But i don't see how that causes willful destruction of property and hoping donations dry up to be seen as good things.

[captaincrap]

CC, it sounds to me like the endgame of what you're saying is that hiring oscar Weber is the best we can do, and any disappointment in the hire and Currie is ill-placed because we don't know how hard Currie's job actually is.  Is that right?

Nope, not what I'm saying. I am not defending BW hire. I think anger about Frank and the search process is misplaced. Feel free to be disappointed. Don't think it's cool to harm K-State because of it. thats all.

[michigancat]

Who knows -- everybody is different. Some people want to stay in recruiting/living/coaching areas they know and like, some people think poorly of K-State or Manhattan, some like their current job better, others think a better offer might come later.

Seems like a place that has a potential conference POY, returns almost all the scoring, and has a brand new practice facility should be able to get an assistant coach or former head coach at least interested. If it can't, it seems like a place that must take risks to be great. Otherwise, they have to do things conventionally and hope for mediocrity.

[DQ12]

CC, it sounds to me like the endgame of what you're saying is that hiring oscar Weber is the best we can do, and any disappointment in the hire and Currie is ill-placed because we don't know how hard Currie's job actually is.  Is that right?

Nope, not what I'm saying. I am not defending BW hire. I think anger about Frank and the search process is misplaced. Feel free to be disappointed. Don't think it's cool to harm K-State because of it. thats all.

But the search process is what brought about the BW hire.  If he ran his search and it ended with BW being the best attainable name, then you need to step back and look at the process and change something.  The hire didn't, and doesn't make sense and it's incomprehensible how Currie couldn't have recognized that.

[captaincrap]

Not saying you have to love the hire at all. But actively trying to harm K-State because of it seems irrational to me.

Regarding the "celebrating the destruction of property" thing, some dude tried to climb on a sink to turn the volume up for the press conference in the bramlage lobby. He accidentally broke the sink in the process. It was a klutzy moment that was funny. It's unfortunate that the sink got broken in the process, but it wasn't on purpose. Most people don't actually want to destroy or vandalize K-State property.

None of us want to harm K-State in the long run. The feeling is that our voices are not being heard and that the only way we can make a statement is "Don't Give, Don't Go" or participate in active protests at the games. That's not going to change unless there are continued outreach efforts such as yours. We've been marginalized by the 'tucks and the local media for being loud, young, and occasionally obnoxious in our passion for KSU sports. If the athletic department does this, that "us against the world" mentality will only grow. Are we occasionally off-base? Sure. And perhaps we should recognize that more. But when you get treated like the red-headed stepchild of your own fanbase for years on end because you're willing to call bullshit when something doesn't seem right, you're going to become more combative.

Changing subjects: How much smoke is there to the rumors that the other coaches hate Currie?

I get it, you're frustrated. Maybe work up to protests and billboards and crap? Maybe start with a thoughtful email that outlines your areas of concern? You'll probably get an email back that says "give it a chance"... but then if it doesn't go well you can respond and say "hey I gave it a chance, it blows, I am protesting until action is taken or something".

[0.42]

Not saying you have to love the hire at all. But actively trying to harm K-State because of it seems irrational to me.

Regarding the "celebrating the destruction of property" thing, some dude tried to climb on a sink to turn the volume up for the press conference in the bramlage lobby. He accidentally broke the sink in the process. It was a klutzy moment that was funny. It's unfortunate that the sink got broken in the process, but it wasn't on purpose. Most people don't actually want to destroy or vandalize K-State property.

None of us want to harm K-State in the long run. The feeling is that our voices are not being heard and that the only way we can make a statement is "Don't Give, Don't Go" or participate in active protests at the games. That's not going to change unless there are continued outreach efforts such as yours. We've been marginalized by the 'tucks and the local media for being loud, young, and occasionally obnoxious in our passion for KSU sports. If the athletic department does this, that "us against the world" mentality will only grow. Are we occasionally off-base? Sure. And perhaps we should recognize that more. But when you get treated like the red-headed stepchild of your own fanbase for years on end because you're willing to call bullshit when something doesn't seem right, you're going to become more combative.

Changing subjects: How much smoke is there to the rumors that the other coaches hate Currie?

I get it, you're frustrated. Maybe work up to protests and billboards and crap? Maybe start with a thoughtful email that outlines your areas of concern? You'll probably get an email back that says "give it a chance"... but then if it doesn't go well you can respond and say "hey I gave it a chance, it blows, I am protesting until action is taken or something".

Considering that others have emailed and gotten back form letters before, I'm skeptical that this would work. But I had planned to write a letter to Schulz.

[captaincrap]

I would also say that if you truly feel your voice isn't being heard, tell JC or KS that. Not so much about BW specifically, but about the things you guys have complained about before -- that you feel like you're in the dark on things, no one sits down and explains things, no way to interface with the AthDept monolith. There's a chance to start progress toward improvement there, but not if you clothe it in hatred and anger. Just some advice.

[michigancat]

Considering that others have emailed and gotten back form letters before, I'm skeptical that this would work. But I had planned to write a letter to Schulz.

I know people sent reasonable emails in support of hiring Gottlieb (I saw them posted here). And judging from CC's complete condescension toward anyone who thought hiring Gottlieb was a good idea, I can't imagine anyone questioning the Weber hire would be taken seriously.

[captaincrap]

Considering that others have emailed and gotten back form letters before, I'm skeptical that this would work. But I had planned to write a letter to Schulz.

I know people sent reasonable emails in support of hiring Gottlieb (I saw them posted here). And judging from CC's complete condescension toward anyone who thought hiring Gottlieb was a good idea, I can't imagine anyone questioning the Weber hire would be taken seriously.

I personally think it would have been a mistake. Not sure what that has to do with letters to JC and KS. They can form their own opinions. Just because it was different than yours doesn't mean the letters weren't read and taken in consideration.

[michigancat]

Considering that others have emailed and gotten back form letters before, I'm skeptical that this would work. But I had planned to write a letter to Schulz.

I know people sent reasonable emails in support of hiring Gottlieb (I saw them posted here). And judging from CC's complete condescension toward anyone who thought hiring Gottlieb was a good idea, I can't imagine anyone questioning the Weber hire would be taken seriously.

I personally think it would have been a mistake. Not sure what that has to do with letters to JC and KS. They can form their own opinions. Just because it was different than yours doesn't mean the letters weren't read and taken in consideration.

That's fine if you think it would have been a mistake. I can see how people would say that. I also realize you aren't Currie or Schulz, but I imagine that if someone in the department who has been pretty reasonable for the most part acts so condescending and dismissive, I assume it's a commonly held perspective throughout the department. And I can understand if I'm wrong.

[DQ12]

CC, it sounds to me like the endgame of what you're saying is that hiring oscar Weber is the best we can do, and any disappointment in the hire and Currie is ill-placed because we don't know how hard Currie's job actually is.  Is that right?

Nope, not what I'm saying. I am not defending BW hire. I think anger about Frank and the search process is misplaced. Feel free to be disappointed. Don't think it's cool to harm K-State because of it. thats all.

How can you defend the search process, but not defend the hire?  If the process ended in a poor hire as the best option, isn't it safe to say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the process?  Could he not have stepped back and realized "Weber has just finished running a once proud program into the ground" and gone back to the drawing board and changed something?

[0.42]

Thanks for the discussion CC. You've given me something to think about. I'm still not convinced that Currie's the best person to have representing us, but I've calmed down a little.

[SdK]

THANK YOU CC 4 BEING WITH US AND KSU!!!

I don't always agree with everything you say, but you always seem to have an even keel and your heart with the University. Thanks for your scoops, your nuggets, and your Crap.

[Barry McCockner]

Was just a matter of time.  This place isn't going to get any more currie-friendly now and it is obvs that CC respects Currie and Currie's work.

  Has nothing to do with Currie. You guys are so pissed about f-ing Gottlieb you've just turned into this total mob mentality over his name. I get that you liked Frank and don't like oscar. Fine. But you guys are praising people who purposefully destroyed K-State property, encouraging people to go to games and boo, thinking of ways to pull funding from facility projects.. I mean, these are things that in no way help K-State, a place you supposedly care about. This is not how you act about a place you love. At all. All because you believe the ends would justify the means? 

I'm sorry, I have zero interest in coming on here now because there's no more room for rational talk about anything. This thread sealed it for me -- if you can't even praise this west side project because of a goddam TV ANALYST not being hired, then there's no point. You're past coherent thought.

K-State always comes first for me, not an AD or a coach. I'm willing to let BW prove his worth before I judge him or Currie's hire. K-State has just had arguably the two best overall seasons in Athletics in school history back-to-back. And some of you I truly believe would physically injure Currie gleefully because a goddam TV ANALYST wasn't hired as a coach. Just... pathetic.

 

You clearly haven't bothered reading a rough ridin' thing on this board.  This doesn't have a mother rough ridin' thing to do with Gottlieb.

["storm"nut]

Was just a matter of time.  This place isn't going to get any more currie-friendly now and it is obvs that CC respects Currie and Currie's work.

  Has nothing to do with Currie. You guys are so pissed about f-ing Gottlieb you've just turned into this total mob mentality over his name. I get that you liked Frank and don't like oscar. Fine. But you guys are praising people who purposefully destroyed K-State property, encouraging people to go to games and boo, thinking of ways to pull funding from facility projects.. I mean, these are things that in no way help K-State, a place you supposedly care about. This is not how you act about a place you love. At all. All because you believe the ends would justify the means? 

I'm sorry, I have zero interest in coming on here now because there's no more room for rational talk about anything. This thread sealed it for me -- if you can't even praise this west side project because of a goddam TV ANALYST not being hired, then there's no point. You're past coherent thought.

K-State always comes first for me, not an AD or a coach. I'm willing to let BW prove his worth before I judge him or Currie's hire. K-State has just had arguably the two best overall seasons in Athletics in school history back-to-back. And some of you I truly believe would physically injure Currie gleefully because a goddam TV ANALYST wasn't hired as a coach. Just... pathetic.

 

You clearly haven't bothered reading a rough ridin' thing on this board.  This doesn't have a mother rough ridin' thing to do with Gottlieb.

Gottlieb is a metaphor for what was going on. Truly Gottlieb might have got an interview if we did not push it so hard (inmates running the asylum)

[CHONGS]

The sad truth is that CC is basically saying that the AD thinks the best we can do at k-state in basketball is scraps, "better" schools' castoffs.

[Barry McCockner]

All you have to do is look at the timeline and it's clear that he never seriously considered anyone else.  Don't you think if he had there would have been leaks, or coaches coming out and publicly saying they were contacted and declining interest?  That crap happens all the time.  You can't do this crap in the time he did (sign sealed and delivered by Friday morning according to Weber) and do a thorough job.

...and the line of crap that he keeps spewing about how he couldn't find anyone that could point out one negative thing about Weber is just a blatent rough ridin' lie.  The guy just got FIRED.  rough ridin' FIRED.  Fired for performance.   If he didn't find any negatives it was because he never picked up the phone.  Even the people I've heard give the most glowing opinions of him readily admit that he can't recruit, among other things.  That foxsports article was dead on.  This hire was all about Currie, and putting someone in place that isn't going to get his ass in trouble in the next 2 years while he shops for his next job.  Currie could give a eff about K-State.  He's building a resume.  I'm leaning that way on Schultz more every day.

...and as for sucking his dick for fundraising, the BBPF, etc - you can go right ahead, I'll give that credit to OB, Huggs, and Martin.  Without them, it wouldn't have happened.  Without Currie, it would have.