Why do we have seemingly "no chance" at a big name coach?

[michigancat]

The general consensus, at least among KSU fans, is that KSU has little or no shot at a guy like Majerus.


Is this just KSU fans' typical small-time thinking?  Or is KSU such a horrible job that a proven winner wouldn't come for, say, an even $million (or more) /year?

[fatty fat fat]

Why?

Greg Doyle.

[sonofdaxjones]

KSU has a chance, but the Dead Presidents on the table will say how much of a chance.

[michigancat]

KSU has a chance, but the Dead Presidents on the table will say how much of a chance.

Is there enough available?

Even if there is, will we spend what it takes?

When I see Lon Kruger getting 700k at UNLV, Calipari starting out at 700k or so at Memphis, it kind of makes me sick.

[ksu_FAN]

Beyond the money, I think the state of the program makes the job more appealing to a younger guy.  Older guys or "big names) are going to want very specific things: location and ability to recruit being a couple and probably the ability to win right away.  I don't think the older guys mentioned (Majerus, Richardson, Huggins) want to go to a program that has to be absolutely rebuilt.  Sure, they'll want a challenge, but after our last 15 years or so that might be the perception this job may be viewed as more than a challenge.  

I think younger guys are more willing to overlook that.  I think they can see a situation like K-State and feel they can get the job done here, even if it is a stepping stone job.  Its all about timing and opportunity and the younger guys are going to be easier to sell on that at a place like K-State given the state of the program over some of the older guys.

I think there is a lot more to it than just money.

[fatty fat fat]

Dude. No one will come here. Greg Doyle said the Mizzou job was 35 million times better than the KSU job. He also said the coaches he's talked to wouldn't come to Manhattan.

This is why we get no-name coaches.

[michigancat]

Beyond the money, I think the state of the program makes the job more appealing to a younger guy.  Older guys or "big names) are going to want very specific things: location and ability to recruit being a couple and probably the ability to win right away.  I don't think the older guys mentioned (Majerus, Richardson, Huggins) want to go to a program that has to be absolutely rebuilt.  Sure, they'll want a challenge, but after our last 15 years or so that might be the perception this job may be viewed as more than a challenge. 

I think younger guys are more willing to overlook that.  I think they can see a situation like K-State and feel they can get the job done here, even if it is a stepping stone job.  Its all about timing and opportunity and the younger guys are going to be easier to sell on that at a place like K-State given the state of the program over some of the older guys.

I think there is a lot more to it than just money.

Why then, according to talking heads such as Gregg Doyel, is the Mizzou job so much more attractive, especially to guys like Majerus?

[ksu_FAN]

An Elite 8 in the last 5 years helps.

Plus, the perception is more that Quin Snyder was a mess more than the program is a mess.  Although they do have some work to do in fixing the mess they've made.

They're situation overall now is more equated where we were when we hired Asbury. 

Sad to say, our hire is more like what aTm was doing when they replaced Watkins.

[michigancat]

An Elite 8 in the last 5 years helps.

Plus, the perception is more that Quin Snyder was a mess more than the program is a mess.  Although they do have some work to do in fixing the mess they've made.

They're situation overall now is more equated where we were when we hired Asbury. 

Sad to say, our hire is more like what aTm was doing when they replaced Watkins.

I guess I don't see it that way.  IMO, the Elite Eight run has nothing to do with the current state of the program.   Both teams underacheive and have a star with little talent surrounding them, although it could be argued that KSU will have more returning talent.  (I'm assuming) KSU could offer a similar salary.  KSU has the older arena, but there is a commitment to improvements, and the Athletic Dept., for all its problems, isn't a complete clusterf*ck.

As of today, I think the jobs are pretty close, mainly due to the circus at Mizzou.

[fatty fat fat]

You're delusional. We have been ass for 15 years. Haven't finished above .500 since 1988.



If you want to make that arguement, than KSU football has no leverage on say...ku or MU.

Recent history matters...a bunch.

[michigancat]

You're delusional. We have been ass for 15 years. Haven't finished above .500 since 1988.



If you want to make that arguement, than KSU football has no leverage on say...ku or MU.

Recent history matters...a bunch.

That's fair.  I don't think we have leverage on MU when it comes to hiring a FB coach, though.

[fatty fat fat]

It's been proven you can compete at the highest level in Manhattan.

MU hasn't sniffed a top-20 ranking in football since the 1960's

Face it, our basketball position is garbage right now. We need to make a big-time hire to get some sort of respect back. That's why we need to take Huggins...we just need wins right now.

[ksu_FAN]

The circus has helped even things out.

Quin had NCAAs his first 4 seasons, then 2 NIT trips.  This will be the first year that MU hasn't made postseason under his watch.  Even though Fatty tells me to F off (I know you guys still consider me a "Woolite"), I agree with him.

[michigancat]

It's been proven you can compete at the highest level in Manhattan.

MU hasn't sniffed a top-20 ranking in football since the 1960's

Face it, our basketball position is garbage right now. We need to make a big-time hire to get some sort of respect back. That's why we need to take Huggins...we just need wins right now.

You can't compare FB to BB.  A good coach can get 3 or 4 good players and have success at a school that had been absolute crap beforehand.  Ex:  Cincy hadn't done a damn thing from the time Oscar Robertson left till Huggins was hired.  They then proceed to kick ass for 17 years.  It takes years to build a solid program, so success from five years ago is much more important w/ fb than bb.


I agree on Huggins, although many KSU fans that would even accept Huggins think the KSU job is too crappy even for him to consider.  :(

[fatty fat fat]

We'll...if it's so easy to turn around a basketball program, why are the top 4 in the big 12 always (since it's inception in 1996) ku,OU,OSU and UT?

In football we've had a bit more variation.

KSU has awesome...now we suck
NU was awesome...now mediocre
UT sucked...now awesome
OU sucked...now awesome


You are right about "it takes a few players" the hard part is getting those players. Recruiting rankings are very accurate in bball....so essentially it comes down to beating the big-boys for the top recruits. It's hard to do that. Huggins can do that...and it kills me that KSU fans don't realize he has top 15 talent waiting to follow him.

[michigancat]

We'll...if it's so easy to turn around a basketball program, why are the top 4 in the big 12 always (since it's inception in 1996) ku,OU,OSU and UT?

In football we've had a bit more variation.

KSU has awesome...now we suck
NU was awesome...now mediocre
UT sucked...now awesome
OU sucked...now awesome


You are right about "it takes a few players" the hard part is getting those players. Recruiting rankings are very accurate in bball....so essentially it comes down to beating the big-boys for the top recruits. It's hard to do that. Huggins can do that...and it kills me that KSU fans don't realize he has top 15 talent waiting to follow him.

http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/pac10/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/mbb-05mg-conf-standings
http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/acc/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/mbk077091
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/bige/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/0506mg_staffrecords.pdf

The Pac 10's top 3 finishers since 1996 (6 of 10 teams):

Arizona
Washington
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
Oregon

Throw in the top 4 and add (this makes 8 of 10):

USC
ASU



The ACC's top 3 since '96 (6 of 9 teams):

UNC
Wake
Duke
Georgia Tech
NC State
Maryland

The Big East's top 4 or top two in division since 2001(!) (11 teams):

Boston College
Uconn
Syracuse
Nova
Pitt
Providence
Seton Hall
Miami
Notre Dame
Georgetown
St. Johns


I couldn't find the SEC or Big Ten, but the Big XII is definitely the exception to the rule.

[michigancat]

I found the SEC and Big Ten back to 2002:

SEC (7):

Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi State
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee (they'll definitely get in the top 4 this year)


Big Ten (8):

Ohio State
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Purdue
Michigan State
Iowa
Minnesota


Basically, every real conference but the Big XII has had over half their teams finish in the top third of the conference, and the "it's hard to rebuild because the Big XII top 4 looks the same every year" argument is crap.  Anyone can win in basketball.

[fatty fat fat]

 

[greasd up deaf guy]

Two words: Tim Weiser.

[Super PurpleCat]

Anyone can win in basketball?  Lol, ok.  How's the ACC looking.

[michigancat]

Anyone can win in basketball?  Lol, ok.  How's the ACC looking.

LOL