I thought another poster on KSF.com said it best........
Here we have Bob Huggins, a coach who questionable ethics and poor graduation rate got him canned at UC. One year later, K-State gives the guy a second chance ...
... and K-State is the bad guy for hiring him.
One year after that, Huggins bails on his commitment to the university and the players to go home, leaving us high and dry ...
... and K-State is still the bad guy for expecting players to honor commitments they made.
Kansas State promotes from within to keep the team intact and to make the transition to a new coaching staff as painless as possible ...
... and K-State is again the bad guy for its "insecure, win at all costs" attitude.
How did K-State become the bad guy?
What if this exact same scenario had gone down at Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Florida, or even Kansas? Would the media be painting any of those schools as bad guys? What is it about Kansas State that we get painted as bad guys for:
--Giving a tarnished coach a chance
--Expecting players to honor commitments
--Promote said tarnished coach's assistants
Rival schools say hiring Huggins was "selling our soul" because we "were willing to do anything to win." I guess WVU sold its soul then too, didn't it? And I ask you, Jayhawks, if the past 15 years had been reversed, if you were the storied program that had gone south and we were the one that made it to Final Fours and Championship games (as well as beating you 32 straight times and dominating on your court), would not Lew be willing to give a Bob Huggins a chance if it meant becoming competitive again?
I ask you, Kansas, if Bill Self attracted a top recruiting class and then left for another school, and if it looked like your incoming recruits might bail with him, with mere days left until signing period (thus decimating your program), would you not expect them to honor commitments?
I ask you, Kansas, if the best way to salvage the situation was to promote within, would you not do it?
The fact is, every other program in the country--EVERY OTHER PROGRAM--would do the exact same thing given the situation. If Duke or NC or uk or ku went through 15 years of hardship and then hired a Bob Huggins, the media would say, "I sure am glad to see this. I would like to see Huggins bring back the glory days of when Duke/NC/uk/ku was one of the finest programs in the country."
If Huggins turned around and bailed on Duke/NC/uk/ku to "go home," the media would say, "Bob Huggins is a rat! How dare he do that to a wonderful institution like Duke/NC/uk/ku."
If Duke/NC/uk/ku expected kids to honor their commitments, the media would say, "Why, that's only the right thing to do! Of course, Duke/NC/uk/ku should expect kids to honor LOI's if they are to grow to become upstanding young men."
And if Duke/NC/uk/ku promoted an assistant under Huggins to keep their fractured program intact, the media would say, "Wise move on Duke/NC/uk/ku's part! You don't want to lose the momentum that Huggins started."
For some reason, the world has a hard-on for KSU. Instead of getting upset, we should deal with it. We should love it. It drives them a lot crazier than it should drive us, and the worst most of them can do is talk.
K-State has made all the right moves in this situation, in my opinion. In fact, I think this is the way it was supposed to happen, that Martin was supposed to get that chance, and he is going to be just fine. I don't care what Squawks and MountingQueers say; K-State is a good university full of good people, and good things eventually do happen to good people.
And if any other uni wants to play the holier-than-thou card, tell me with a straight face that given the same situation you wouldn't do the same thing. I don't believe you. I don't believe any other major university wouldn't do whatever it takes to keep their program from sinking into the stone age.
We are K-State! Deal with it!
