If we aren't going to get a "Big Name"coach

[michigancat]

I would almost give Wooldridge a major extension that truly shows we're committed to him.  Have a big Press Conference with Weiser, Wefald, and Wooldridge, say things like "we don't want this relationship to end, "love the situation", etc. to put on a nice show for potential recruits.

Why?  Fans like him.  He has a lot of nice upsets and is competitive.  Men's basketball is turning a profit.  At least we know Jim can consistently be slightly be mediocre, and rarely be horrible. 

If we hire someone like Chris Lowery, it means we're stepping into the unknown, which means things could get worse than they are now.


If our next coach isn't a proven winner, why take another (4th in a row) chance when we know we can be no worse than mediocre for years to come?

[mjrod]

I'm at the point where we need to do something.   Huggins (assuming he would come here) would be a great fit.  Most of the top candidates are people that can win.

However, does all Jim need is a little more time?   Patterson didn't have a Top 15 basketball team for 6 years and then all of a sudden, we're ranked.  Maybe that's the kind of thing that goes on here.   

I do know this, we need a new coach.

[michigancat]

In short:

If we don't want to commit to winning, we should commit to Wooldridge.

[ksu_FAN]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change.  It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen.  Its simply how its done.  Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid.  That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now. 

[michigancat]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious.  Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury.  That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge.  I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

[kougar24]

If we don't want to commit to winning, we should commit to Wooldridge.

That should be a bumper sticker.

[mjrod]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious.  Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury.  That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge.  I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success.  Any coach can be that way.   Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

[michigancat]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious. Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury. That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge. I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success. Any coach can be that way. Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

The easiest way to evaluate a coach is look at his winning percentage, who he was winning against, and how long he did it for.

If a coach one a lot of games against quality competition for 15+ years, you take a lot of the guesswork....errr....."evaluation" out of the equation.

[BarryMcCockner]

Factor in the ADs record of hiring basketball coaches and the ADs propensity to spend (or fail to spend) the necessary money, and the formula changes dramaticly.

[mjrod]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious. Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury. That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge. I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success. Any coach can be that way. Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

The easiest way to evaluate a coach is look at his winning percentage, who he was winning against, and how long he did it for.

If a coach one a lot of games against quality competition for 15+ years, you take a lot of the guesswork....errr....."evaluation" out of the equation.

No, that is just one aspect.  The rest of it has to do with fit.

If all you care about is a guy with a sordid history, then fine.   Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with Huggins, but you and I aren't doing the hiring.   I'm not going to be upset if it's someone else.

[BarryMcCockner]

Chances are the next coach won't have a record of player transgressions as extensive as Huggins' if only due to the fact that his coaching experience (if any as a head coach) will likely be very limited.  That's what you get for under $150K though...

[michigancat]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious. Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury. That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge. I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success. Any coach can be that way. Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

The easiest way to evaluate a coach is look at his winning percentage, who he was winning against, and how long he did it for.

If a coach one a lot of games against quality competition for 15+ years, you take a lot of the guesswork....errr....."evaluation" out of the equation.

No, that is just one aspect. The rest of it has to do with fit.

If all you care about is a guy with a sordid history, then fine. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with Huggins, but you and I aren't doing the hiring. I'm not going to be upset if it's someone else.

That's three aspects.  I don't care about a "sordid" history - I care about wins.  Huggins isn't the only guy I want, and I won't be upset if it's someone else, either - as long as it isn't the same "someone else" we've hired the last three times.

[BarryMcCockner]

What about "can be hired for a base salary not to exceed $150,000"?

That should narrow the list significantly.

[sys]

if rusty's half serious proposal was to be done, it needed to be done last season.  it is no longer a viable option.  but i do agree with rusty about the chances of improvement.  i feel like i've seen enough games played by wooldridge teams to know that he is an above average division 1 ncaa coach.  not great, but better than average.

given weiser's track record with basketball coaches, i feel it is more likely ksu's next hire will be a worse coach rather than a better one.  i'm hoping for the best, but i'm preparing for another long 4-6 years.

the truly sad part will be that weiser won't have to make a hard choice.  this year, he wouldn't have to identify the "right guy" from the nationwide stable of mid-majors and assistants.  there are 2 guys available that are almost guaranteed winners.  but we all know that weiser is going to prefer to roll the dice.

[mjrod]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious. Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury. That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge. I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success. Any coach can be that way. Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

The easiest way to evaluate a coach is look at his winning percentage, who he was winning against, and how long he did it for.

If a coach one a lot of games against quality competition for 15+ years, you take a lot of the guesswork....errr....."evaluation" out of the equation.

No, that is just one aspect. The rest of it has to do with fit.

If all you care about is a guy with a sordid history, then fine. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with Huggins, but you and I aren't doing the hiring. I'm not going to be upset if it's someone else.

That's three aspects.  I don't care about a "sordid" history - I care about wins.  Huggins isn't the only guy I want, and I won't be upset if it's someone else, either - as long as it isn't the same "someone else" we've hired the last three times.

No, Winning is just one aspect.    The sordid history, his ability to recruit good players without a criminal past, his ability to set the leadership role outside the hoops, his devotion to the academic aspect of the university, is just as important.   He must be and sell KSU because as many of you have said so often, it's hard to recruit to KSU. I don't believe that, but a coach has to be able to make Manhattan look like a resort vacation spot, with beautiful women, and nice golf courses, and fresh air, and a lively community that supports KSU athletics.   

I have no doubt that Huggins can accomplish this, but if he was capable, why didn't he do it at Cincinnati?   These are valid questions that wins alone do not minimize.

[michigancat]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious. Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury. That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge. I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

It all comes down to evaluating which coach wants to come here, if we want them here, and if the match = success. Any coach can be that way. Whether we get a coach that everyone will be satisfied with will not be known immediately.

The easiest way to evaluate a coach is look at his winning percentage, who he was winning against, and how long he did it for.

If a coach one a lot of games against quality competition for 15+ years, you take a lot of the guesswork....errr....."evaluation" out of the equation.

No, that is just one aspect. The rest of it has to do with fit.

If all you care about is a guy with a sordid history, then fine. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with Huggins, but you and I aren't doing the hiring. I'm not going to be upset if it's someone else.

That's three aspects. I don't care about a "sordid" history - I care about wins. Huggins isn't the only guy I want, and I won't be upset if it's someone else, either - as long as it isn't the same "someone else" we've hired the last three times.

No, Winning is just one aspect. The sordid history, his ability to recruit good players without a criminal past, his ability to set the leadership role outside the hoops, his devotion to the academic aspect of the university, is just as important. He must be and sell KSU because as many of you have said so often, it's hard to recruit to KSU. I don't believe that, but a coach has to be able to make Manhattan look like a resort vacation spot, with beautiful women, and nice golf courses, and fresh air, and a lively community that supports KSU athletics.

I have no doubt that Huggins can accomplish this, but if he was capable, why didn't he do it at Cincinnati? These are valid questions that wins alone do not minimize.

I think he did - it's just that it only takes one Donald Little to make people think you recruit nothing but thugs.  He recruited many good citizens to Cincy.  Unfortunately, the media/messageboardom focus on the negatives and blow things out of proportion.

[mjrod]

Whatever.

The you're willing to overlook more than what the administration is.

Unfortunately, I'm willing to overlook it to, IF he's willing to make KSU look good.   I think he can do it, but the powers that be aren't going to give him the chance.. to say nothing that he might not even want the job.

[BarryMcCockner]

It may be interesting to discuss, but even if the other hurdles were overcome, KSU wouldn't tender a competitive offer.  $150,000 base isn't going to get anything more than hysterical laughter from a coach at the Huggins or Majerus level.

[Fausto]

Right Rusty.  Either make the commitment to go out and get a coach you know can turn this thing around or continue on admitting the commitment to mediocrity.  At this point you have to completely shake up the Etch-a-Sketch, not just roll the pointer another direction.

[WILDCAT NATION]

The sarcastic idea is humorous, but you know there will be change. It might be change for the sake of change, but change will happen. Its simply how its done. Yeah, if we don't get your boy or some other big name, the risk factor is higher, but there's always a chance that the next hire if its someone like Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid. That's the chance you take when you've reached the point we have, but no doubt in my mind that a change will be made now.

I know a change will be made, but I'm actually halfway serious.  Jeter or Cronin or Lowery might be solid, but they might be worse coaches than Wayne Morgan and worse recruiters than Tom Asbury.  That would be much worse than what we have with Wooldridge.  I'm not sure I want to take that chance just for the sake of taking a chance.

I'm actually starting to wonder if this might play out...especially if they beat ku on Saturday.  And isn't it pretty much a guarantee that KSU will hire someone we've never heard of?