goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on July 19, 2012, 12:33:42 PM
-
First Nomination for the FHCWL*AC/ADWIS:
James Franklin-Head Coach Vanderbilt
Pro's: Major Conference D1 Head Coaching Experience, places major value on recruiting, decent offensive mind, understands how facilities play a role in recruiting. Know's K-State.
Con's: Laughable offensive game management at times as the OC at K-State and Maryland.
Tidbits: Over five yards per offensive snap last year at Vandy, significant improvement year over year, but still low in the total offense national rankings (facing some good SEC Defenses) Vandy also had the 18th ranked defense in the country last year. Is it a case of a new coach inheriting decent players from the old Vandy regime who was making a little headway towards respectability?
Vandy took Georgia and Arkansas to the wire last year, but did choke pretty hard against a bad Tenn team.
Why K-State: K-State's total athletic budget is substantially higher than Vandy's. Major facilities projects at Vandy consist of new turf, new lights, a new video board and a new dressing room, while notable at any school, with the West Stadium Center project and master plan for facilities K-State is on much steeper trajectory. Vandy does NOT have a standalone athletic department, Vandy athletics are rolled into another department on campus ex: Vandy's new indoor facility while nice will be shared with Vandy student recreational services.
Why not K-State: With Franklin's massive emphasis on recruiting, Vandy's locale and being in SEC territory they've ratcheted up recruiting significantly. He may not want to go to a place that has some more recruiting challenges. Vandy has access to some deep pockets, so if they ever decide they're really going to join the arms race they can probably do it pretty easily, however it's unclear if the administration there wants to do anymore than make sure they have decent stuff and keep their status as the "SEC's Ivy".
Finally: Franklin took Vandy to a bowl game, but how will it play out when he has all of his own players? Recruiting rankings indicate greater success, but Vandy is still a relative weakling in the SEC. If he consistently gets Vandy to bowl games, he’ll be a wanted commodity. If not, just another failed Vandy football coach.
-
would laugh in our faces
-
Mods please pin this thread and delete SD's post.
TIA and EMAW!
-
would never happen. check out the "top 4 wr list" thread....our Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) fanbase hates anything associated with ron prince.
-
skip holtz
a) stud
b) seems cool
c) can coach
d) can recruit
prob WLIOF but worth a shot?
-
skip holtz
a) stud
b) seems cool
c) can coach
d) can recruit
prob WLIOF but worth a shot?
yeah, worth a shot
-
damn he's already making 1.9m, still WAS or WLIOF ?
-
in a perfect world, our next coach would be so unconnected to ksu that he wouldn't even be able to find kansas on a map.
-
in a perfect world, our next coach would be so unconnected to ksu that he wouldn't even be able to find kansas on a map.
Peyton Manning
-
damn he's already making 1.9m, still WAS or WLIOF ?
I still say WAS. He's stuck in the leftovers of the BE. Not a good place to be. Also think offering Franklin is WAS. Both probably LIOF though.
-
in a perfect world, our next coach would be so unconnected to ksu that he wouldn't even be able to find kansas on a map.
Peyton Manning
would take. or brett favre.
-
in a perfect world, our next coach would be so unconnected to ksu that he wouldn't even be able to find kansas on a map.
Peyton Manning
would take. or brett favre.
Brett is widely known as a huge idiot. do not want.
-
i've never heard anyone say that brett is an idiot.
just imagine.....
BF: Ok, Daniel, here's the gameplan for this week's game against iowa state. just snap the ball, run around a bit, and then launch that thing as hard and as high as you can.
DS: touchdown city, population me
-
franklin would rival prince for the dumb/great crap that would/already has come out of his mouth
-
dana dimel
-
dana dimel
currie won't waste his hire on him but he should be considered
-
2nd Nomination:
Bobby Petrino-Former Head Coach University of Arkansas
Pros: Successful major conference D1 Head Coaching Experience. Considered an offensive genius by some.
Cons: Now well known for making extremely bad lifestyle choices, difficult to work for and with, unprofessional behavior at multiple coaching stops.
Tidbits: 75-26 as a college head coach including 4-1 in bowl games. His departures at Arkansas, Atlanta and Louisville are well documented, including secretly interviewing for the Auburn job after just taking a huge pay raise at Louisville.
Why K-State: An opportunity for career redemption for a defrocked and embarrassed former SEC coach who was riding a career rocket ship to the stars before the Harley ride with the blonde football staffer.
Why not K-State: He’s got more baggage than the main terminal in ATL.
Finally: Worth watching if not just for the potential intrigue. Will he want to coach again, will he have finally learned a lesson?
-
Dimel should be considered.
Leavitt needs to be forced to say no.
Jeff jadgovonski (or however the hell you spell it) should be interviewed
Sumlin should get a call
-
Bobby Petrino WOULD NOT laugh in our face :emawkid:
-
Dax, no offense, but this list is crap. It didn't start with Tressel.
-
Dimel should be considered.
yeah, if rumblings are true then Dimel deserves almost as much credit for last season as Bill.
-
If we hire Petrino does Harley day get scrapped?
Is this worth the risk???
-
I nominate the Yellow Tower Crane as HCIW :love:
-
Mods please delete "storm" nuts post and ban from goEMAW.
TIA and EMAW!
-
Mods please delete "storm" nuts post and ban from goEMAW.
TIA and EMAW!
:lynchmob:
-
Mike stoops?
-
need more young dynamic offensive coordinator types
-
Lameo boring sucky head coach
Pro's: I've probably called like a dozen folks from an Arlington, TX hotel room and no one can say anything bad about him. And he wants to be here.
Con's: See above. I'm still making calls.
Why K-State: Northern Alabama will not be able to match our offer.
Why not K-State: *blank stare*
-
Lameo boring sucky head coach
Pro's: I've probably called like a dozen folks from an Arlington, TX hotel room and no one can say anything bad about him. And he wants to be here.
Con's: See above. I'm still making calls.
Why K-State: Northern Alabama will not be able to match our offer.
Why not K-State: *blank stare*
:thumbs:
-
Petrino would be amazing.
-
*Nominations are random and show no preferences
Jim Tressel-Former Head Coach Ohio State (currently working as VP of Strategic Engagement, University of Akron)
Pro's: Big time winner at both Youngston State and Ohio State. National titles at both schools as well as multiple Big 10 conference titles. 5-4 in FBS bowls, 23-6 in FCS playoff games. 229-79-2 Career Record. Took over and won big at struggling Ohio State, dominated Ohio State's main rival Michigan.
Con's: Still under show cause umbrella (I believe) for NCAA infractions at Ohio State. Somewhat static/old school offenses struggled against speed defenses. Age: 59
Tidbits: In light of recent events, Tressel's NCAA issues at Ohio State seem insignificant. Life lesson: When they've got you dead to rights, don't lie even more. What Tressel did at Ohio State could probably be uncovered in dozen's of athletic departments across the country.
Why K-State: Like Petrino a chance to reknew a great career.
Why not K-State: K-State is major college football, but it ain't Ohio State (then again, at this stage that could be a good thing).
Finally: Is Tressel done with coaching?
-
Mods please remove all "I am clearly still amazingly butthurt about the basketball hire" posts.
TIA and EMAW!
-
don't want tressel.
-
Mike Stoops-Defensive Coordinator, University of Oklahoma (Former Headcoach at Arizona).
Pros: Knows K-State. Helped OU win a National Title. Major Conference D1 headcoaching experience. Known for attacking style defenses. Above average recruiter, with LHC Bill Snyder "eye".
Cons: At times makes Frank Martin seem absolutely normal. Wears on people. Got Arizona headed back in the right direction but just couldn't get over the hump. 41-50 at Arizona. Erratic personal life.
Tidbits: Nothing new, Stoops is well known in K-State circles for obvious reasons.
Why K-State: Was a major cog in helping Snyder get the program going. Another chance to prove something as a head coach.
Why Not K-State: Lot of water under that bridge.
Finally: Stoops could POSSIBLY keep a few key components of exisitng staff, and likely draw in some younger blood . . . aggressive on the recruiting trail.
-
nope
-
don't want tressel.
BOOOOOOOOOO
-
Dax, do Venzy next.
-
Dimel should be considered.
yeah, if rumblings are true then Dimel deserves almost as much credit for last season as Bill.
Dimel is good.
Would be very happy to retain him.
I'm sure he would work for Stoops.
-
Mods please remove all "reality" posts.
TIA and EMAW!
FYP
-
Mark Helfrich-Offensive coordinator, Oregon
Pros: Mastermind behind a prolific up-tempo offense that draws the attention of the kinds of athletes K-State fans wished signed with K-State more often. Young and aggressive. Oregon averaged 46 and 47 points a game the last 2 years.
Cons: Young. No headcoaching experience. K-State is sponsered by Nike, but Phil Knight isn't hanging out in a suite at BSFS (that could change though). Is it Helfrich or Kelly pushing the right buttons at Oregon?
Tidbits: Oregon's offensive prowess is well documented. Reportedly at the top of the list to replace Kelly when Kelly was contemplating jumping to the NFL.
Why K-State: Opportunity to be a D1 head coach at a major conference school that has the ability to attract the style of players that have made Oregon click.
Why Not K-State: No diving into California for recruits.
-
Mark Helfrich-Offensive coordinator, Oregon
Pros: Mastermind behind a prolific up-tempo offense that draws the attention of the kinds of athletes K-State fans wished signed with K-State more often. Young and aggressive. Oregon averaged 46 and 47 points a game the last 2 years.
Cons: Young. No headcoaching experience. K-State is sponsered by Nike, but Phil Knight isn't hanging out in a suite at BSFS (that could change though). Is it Helfrich or Kelly pushing the right buttons at Oregon?
Tidbits: Oregon's offensive prowess is well documented. Reportedly at the top of the list to replace Kelly when Kelly was contemplating jumping to the NFL.
Why K-State: Opportunity to be a D1 head coach at a major conference school that has the ability to attract the style of players that have made Oregon click.
Why Not K-State: No diving into California for recruits.
WILL TAKE
-
Someone needs to call Larry Fedora. By the time Bill retires, he may just be getting the ship righted at UNC after the sanctions.
Would be okay with Dimel if entire roster stayed together and he was able to get some studs recruiting for him.
-
Brent Venables-Defensive Coordinator, Clemson
Pros: Obviously knows K-State. One of the top recruiters in college football. Has coordinated some of the best defenses in the country. Help win a National Title at OU.
Cons: Venable's defenses floundered at times when the "co" was removed from his title. Never been a headcoach. Defenses prone to give up the big play, at the wrong time.
Tidbits: What don't we know about Venables? Not much.
Why K-State: The guy many K-State fans have wanted for years.
Why Not K-State: Do you know what Brent did?
Finally: The apron strings are cut. Venables career at Clemson will likely decide his D1 head coaching future.
-
Someone needs to call Larry Fedora. By the time Bill retires, he may just be getting the ship righted at UNC after the sanctions.
Would be okay with Dimel if entire roster stayed together and he was able to get some studs recruiting for him.
The only thing IMO that would ever make that happen is if Larry can't take the basketball first mentality of UNC. Otherwise they've got truck loads of money and their player/administrative facilities are off the effing charts. The Roy ego could come into play, how much longer is Roy going to stick around? If Roy wants to hang around awhile and Fedora gets things rolling, Roy's ego may not be able to handle it . . . seriously.
-
I enjoy reading these dax
-
Someone needs to call Larry Fedora. By the time Bill retires, he may just be getting the ship righted at UNC after the sanctions.
Would be okay with Dimel if entire roster stayed together and he was able to get some studs recruiting for him.
The only thing IMO that would ever make that happen is if Larry can't take the basketball first mentality of UNC. Otherwise they've got truck loads of money and their player/administrative facilities are off the effing charts. The Roy ego could come into play, how much longer is Roy going to stick around? If Roy wants to hang around awhile and Fedora gets things rolling, Roy's ego may not be able to handle it . . . seriously.
Let us be your South Carolina if you'll be our Frank Martin, Larry.
-
#gottlieb4ksu
-
Herbstreit
-
Herbstreit
do him, dax.
-
Mods please remove all "I am clearly still amazingly butthurt about the basketball hire" posts.
TIA and EMAW!
Dax, your head coaching watch list kinda sucks, but damm I sure do love your come backs. Makes this thread worth every bit of what I send goEMAW in cold hard cash, even if it's just for the entertainment value. :cheers:
-
Lameo boring sucky head coach
Pro's: I've probably called like a dozen folks from an Arlington, TX hotel room and no one can say anything bad about him. And he wants to be here.
Con's: See above. I'm still making calls.
Why K-State: Northern Alabama will not be able to match our offer.
Why not K-State: *blank stare*
:thumbs:
Curry's got a system, and this guy is free: http://deadspin.com/204477/ron-zook-water-skiing (http://deadspin.com/204477/ron-zook-water-skiing). Recruits like the dickens and will call Curry "Coach Curry".
-
Mr. Bread your spot on realism is depressing.
-
this is a good thread dax, keep it going :thumbs:
-
Will there be updates to the OP or should I be taking notes?
-
Would Manny Diaz LIOF?
-
Low hanging fruit first Katdaddy.
GTFOOMF with this Herbstreit crap. Denied! Get a picture of him with his family and start your own adoreable thread.
Mike Leach-Headcoach, Washington State University
Pros: How much time do you have?
Cons: Probably many if you're an administrator who pi$$es him off. Always some question marks around Leach's teams on the defensive side of the ball. Has a bit of "can't win the big one" stigma. Leach has a personality that could easily migrate into phoning it in/eff these guys/I don't need this bull$hit mode.
Tidbits: 84-43 as a Division One headcoach. 5-4 in bowl games.
Why K-State: Get back to the Big 12 and get the chance to grind his axe (sword), and Leach clearly still has one to grind with Texas Tech. Pullman makes Manhattan seem like Chicago.
Why Not K-State: If there's too many over officious jerks left in the athletic department, forget about it. Leach is making $2 million a year at WSU and if he wins they'll make him dictator for life.
Finally: One can dream right? CJK5H
-
Kirby Smart Defensive Coordinator, Alabama
Pros: He's only 36 and he's been Bama's DC for 5 seasons now. The Bama defense is loaded every year. Already pinging lots of coaching search radars. Rivals has him tagged with 5 Alabama 2011 signees.
Cons: Seems to really like working for Saban. Never been a head coach. Its Alabama recruiting with a defensive minded head coach. Been under Saban's wing for a long time now.
Tidbits: 2009 Frank Broyles top assistant coach award winner.
Why K-State: Chance to jump right into a BCS/AQ conference head coaching positions.
Why not K-State: Outside of his comfort zone.
Finally: Listed as a "can't miss" future head coach in many circles.
-
great stuff. :thumbs:
-
Rick Vice
-
Bob Stoops-Headcoach, Oklahoma
Pros: Multiple Big 12 titles, a national title, multiple BCS bowl appearences. Know's K-State and still longs to return deep down inside.
Cons: Knows what Brent did . . . maybe.
Tidbits: Will bring Mangino with him. Wife seeks to rekindle Mary Kay empire started in Manhattan.
Why K-State: Will want to replace the legend when he retires again, cannot stomach another Prince like successor at K-State.
Why Not K-State: Why not.
Finally: Inside every Sooner, there's an EMAW trying to get out.
-
Bud Foster-Defensive Coordinator, Virginia Tech
Putting Foster on one of these lists is so cliche.
-
One of the Bowden kids. Forget which.
-
Mark Helfrich-Offensive coordinator, Oregon
Pros: Mastermind behind a prolific up-tempo offense that draws the attention of the kinds of athletes K-State fans wished signed with K-State more often. Young and aggressive. Oregon averaged 46 and 47 points a game the last 2 years.
Cons: Young. No headcoaching experience. K-State is sponsered by Nike, but Phil Knight isn't hanging out in a suite at BSFS (that could change though). Is it Helfrich or Kelly pushing the right buttons at Oregon?
Tidbits: Oregon's offensive prowess is well documented. Reportedly at the top of the list to replace Kelly when Kelly was contemplating jumping to the NFL.
Why K-State: Opportunity to be a D1 head coach at a major conference school that has the ability to attract the style of players that have made Oregon click.
Why Not K-State: No diving into California for recruits.
This is more like it
-
Dax, I gotta admit, I'm liking this thread more and more. :cool:
-
Bud Foster-Defensive Coordinator, Virginia Tech
Putting Foster on one of these lists is so cliche.
This is a subtle Grand Slam post, if there is such a thing.
-
Greg Roman-Offensive Coordinator, San Francisco 49ers.
Pros: 13 years in the NFL, including 1 year with Jim Harbaugh at the NFL level, 2 years at Stanford with Harbaugh as an offensive position coach (tackles and tight ends), assistant head coach and running game coordinator. Roman and Harbaugh have teamed up to become 2 of the best in game play callers in football. At Stanford Roman helped coordinate a highly capable power running game that freed up play action opportunities that drove Andre Luck to stardom. While Stanford had its fair share of quality football players with Andrew Luck being one of the very best they are a bit limited by more strident academic requirements. Thus coaching and game planning were at a premium in the very athletic Pac-12. During Roman's time at Stanford they ranked in the Top 20 in points scored, (#1) in fewest sacks allowed in 2009 and 2010, Top 20 in passing yards and rushing yards . . . and TOP! The Cardinal rushed for nearly 3000 yards in 2009. In 2009 All five starters on Stanfords O-Line received some form of post season honors.
Cons: Goofy looking.
Why K-State: Yet another opportunity for a young up-and-comer to make the move up.
Why not K-State: Pull out a map.
Finally: Absolutely someone to keep an eye on.
-
Greg Roman-Offensive Coordinator, San Francisco 49ers.
Pros: 13 years in the NFL, including 1 year with Jim Harbaugh at the NFL level, 2 years at Stanford with Harbaugh as an offensive position coach (tackles and tight ends), assistant head coach and running game coordinator. Roman and Harbaugh have teamed up to become 2 of the best in game play callers in football. At Stanford Roman helped coordinate a highly capable power running game that freed up play action opportunities that drove Andre Luck to stardom. While Stanford had its fair share of quality football players with Andrew Luck being one of the very best they are a bit limited by more strident academic requirements. Thus coaching and game planning were at a premium in the very athletic Pac-12. During Roman's time at Stanford they ranked in the Top 20 in points scored, (#1) in fewest sacks allowed in 2009 and 2010, Top 20 in passing yards and rushing yards . . . and TOP! The Cardinal rushed for nearly 3000 yards in 2009. In 2009 All five starters on Stanfords O-Line received some form of post season honors.
Cons: Goofy looking.
Why K-State: Yet another opportunity for a young up-and-comer to make the move up.
Why not K-State: Pull out a map.
Finally: Absolutely someone to keep an eye on.
off the rails with the formatting, on the mark with the Currie kind of guy. NFL! SPLASH! WHO THE HELL?
-
regardless of who we hire, it has to be an offensive guy.
-
Is Phil Bennett going to make an appearance in this thread?
-
no
-
i don't like thinking about this...
-
Keep it coming. This thread is brilliant
-
This thread makes me so excited for when Dax is going to do his ten part goEMAW Big XII facility series!
-
Greg Roman-Offensive Coordinator, San Francisco 49ers.
Pros: 13 years in the NFL, including 1 year with Jim Harbaugh at the NFL level, 2 years at Stanford with Harbaugh as an offensive position coach (tackles and tight ends), assistant head coach and running game coordinator. Roman and Harbaugh have teamed up to become 2 of the best in game play callers in football. At Stanford Roman helped coordinate a highly capable power running game that freed up play action opportunities that drove Andre Luck to stardom. While Stanford had its fair share of quality football players with Andrew Luck being one of the very best they are a bit limited by more strident academic requirements. Thus coaching and game planning were at a premium in the very athletic Pac-12. During Roman's time at Stanford they ranked in the Top 20 in points scored, (#1) in fewest sacks allowed in 2009 and 2010, Top 20 in passing yards and rushing yards . . . and TOP! The Cardinal rushed for nearly 3000 yards in 2009. In 2009 All five starters on Stanfords O-Line received some form of post season honors.
Cons: Goofy looking.
Why K-State: Yet another opportunity for a young up-and-comer to make the move up.
Why not K-State: Pull out a map.
Finally: Absolutely someone to keep an eye on.
this dude kind of looks like eric stonestreet if he was a football guy
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.49ers.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F2011%2F02-February%2F021611-roman-header.jpg&hash=8749f3b82839e81382f1fbc5acde2c85c737b0af)
-
this dude kind of looks like eric stonestreet if he was a football guy
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.49ers.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F2011%2F02-February%2F021611-roman-header.jpg&hash=8749f3b82839e81382f1fbc5acde2c85c737b0af)
:surprised:
D.Scott's boner would push his trench coat way out there.
-
this dude kind of looks like eric stonestreet if he was a football guy
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.49ers.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F2011%2F02-February%2F021611-roman-header.jpg&hash=8749f3b82839e81382f1fbc5acde2c85c737b0af)
:surprised:
D.Scott's boner would push his trench coat way out there.
It sure would. Imagine the life stories D Scott could write about him. Just imagine them. :drool:
-
Irrational I know (violating "Assuming Currie/AD wins internal struggle" premise):
Becomes AD:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrfx.cstv.com%2Fphotos%2Fschools%2Fksu%2Fsports%2Fm-footbl%2Fauto_headshot%2F5526824.jpeg&hash=df1244428417e4e353ca2d6c251b3117049bf396)
Hires Leavitt:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcnati.com%2Fcoach_leavitt_jim.jpg&hash=0040d0bc7449eefcdefdba00a63bcacbac81baf3)
-
Names for SoDJ...some serious, some LIOF, some the tucks would cream over
Phil Fullmer
John L. Smith
June Jones
Jeff Tedford
Will Muschamp (if he doesn't turn FLA around this year his seat is gonna get burning hot in a hurry)
Randy Edsall
Mark Richt
Frank Solich
Butch Jones
Bret Bielema
:popcorn:
-
Currie will be making the hire, so I assume he resurrects Hitler to coach.
-
Worst list ever
-
Thus far, the best candidates listed, in order, are:
Venzy
Oregon guy
Stoney doppleganger
Dimel
-
Worst list ever
Oh come on now, there is the potential for some pretty effing hilarious commentary on that list! Don't sell it short!!
-
Billy Gonzales, Co-OC, Illinois (sorry Mr. Bead)
a). Pros: Grew up in Big 8 country (now Pac-12 country), quick riser in the coaching circle, great recruiting, learned from Urban Meyer (who learned from LHFCBS), winner
b) Cons: Quick riser in the coaching circle, would leave K-State at better opportunity, no head coaching experience
c) Why K-State: Get head coaching experience
d) Why not K-State: He'd take a low SEC job before K-State
-
Thus far, the best candidates listed, in order, are:
Venzy
Oregon guy
Stoney doppleganger
Dimel
-
If Bill sticks around 2 more seasons and Tulsa has a couple of 9-win seasons - Bill Blankenship? Last year they went 8-5, but 4 of their 5 losses were to OU, OSU, Boise, and Houston and their 5th loss was by 3 to BYU in their bowl game. Their other 8 wins (7 CUSA games & UNT) were by an average of 23.6 points. I'm not saying I'd take him now, but if he has a couple of 9 win seasons: :dunno:
Con: He'll be 57 (he's the same age as Leavitt.)
-
Raheem
-
hey dickheads, let dax do his thing.
-
hey dickheads, let dax do his thing.
This
-
hey dickheads, let dax do his thing.
This
^that
-
Billy Gonzales, Co-OC, Illinois (sorry Mr. Bead)
a). Pros: Grew up in Big 8 country (now Pac-12 country), quick riser in the coaching circle, great recruiting, learned from Urban Meyer (who learned from LHFCBS), winner
b) Cons: Quick riser in the coaching circle, would leave K-State at better opportunity, no head coaching experience
c) Why K-State: Get head coaching experience
d) Why not K-State: He'd take a low SEC job before K-State
:shakesfist: You keep your hands off Billy. He's supposed to be helping Coach Becks bring in boatloads of elite football recruits.
-
Illinois Football
woof
-
Illinois Football
woof
:dubious: Beckman is supposed to be this great recruiter and he brought in a bunch of young, hungry stud recruiting assistants (two from the SEC: Billy Gonzalez and Chris Beatty :love:) who are supposed rake in way more talent than Illinois historically gets. I think the goal is to do what Alvarez did at Wisky. They were garbage before he got there and now they're good to quite good. We won shitty bowl games the past two seasons even under Zook, but yeah still pretty woof. #teambecks though, because unlike Zook he's not a mental defective (reportedly). I have hope because great recruiter + solid coach >>>>>>>> great recruiter + rough ridin' terrible, awful, comically bad coach.
-
Chris Peterson-Headcoach, Boise State
Pros: They just keep on winning and scoring, Peterson is 73-6 at Boise State. Adept at West Coast DITR recruiting. Multiple Coach of the Year awards, BCS Bowl wins, multiple wins against BCS schools in high profile games. Boise State isn't all offensive fire power either, they've shown they can play with seemingly more physical AQ conference teams. BSU 35 Georgia 21, BSU 56 Arizona State 24, BSU 33 Virginia Tech 30, BSU 19 Oregon 8, BSU 37 Oregon 32.
Cons: Very few, outside of Boise's lack of week in-week out BCS competition.
Why K-State: Boise State may never get the call, and the college football playoff system may render it completely impossible for Boise State to raise the crystal football.
Why no K-State: Peterson has spurned all inquiries to date and has built himself quite a little empire in Boise. For some coaches, that's good enough. Geographically Boise has intrigue that Kansas doesn't, making it appealing to fringe Pac-12 recruits.
Finally: It all probably hinges on whether Boise ever gets an AQ conference invite.
-
Chris Peterson-Headcoach, Boise State
Pros: They just keep on winning and scoring, Peterson is 73-6 at Boise State. Adept at West Coast DITR recruiting. Multiple Coach of the Year awards, BCS Bowl wins, multiple wins against BCS schools in high profile games. Boise State isn't all offensive fire power either, they've shown they can play with seemingly more physical AQ conference teams. BSU 35 Georgia 21, BSU 56 Arizona State 24, BSU 33 Virginia Tech 30, BSU 19 Oregon 8, BSU 37 Oregon 32.
Cons: Very few, outside of Boise's lack of week in-week out BCS competition.
Why K-State: Boise State may never get the call, and the college football playoff system may render it completely impossible for Boise State to raise the crystal football.
Why no K-State: Peterson has spurned all inquiries to date and has built himself quite a little empire in Boise. For some coaches, that's good enough. Geographically Boise has intrigue that Kansas doesn't, making it appealing to fringe Pac-12 recruits.
Finally: It all probably hinges on whether Boise ever gets an AQ conference invite.
He can rough ridin' write his own ticket. That's like when some Illini fans thought Brad Stevens was considering Illinois after oscar got the axe. IF he ever leaves, it's going to be a destination job.
-
Billy Gonzales, Co-OC, Illinois (sorry Mr. Bead)
a). Pros: Grew up in Big 8 country (now Pac-12 country), quick riser in the coaching circle, great recruiting, learned from Urban Meyer (who learned from LHFCBS), winner
b) Cons: Quick riser in the coaching circle, would leave K-State at better opportunity, no head coaching experience
c) Why K-State: Get head coaching experience
d) Why not K-State: He'd take a low SEC job before K-State
:shakesfist: You keep your hands off Billy. He's supposed to be helping Coach Becks bring in boatloads of elite football recruits.
Gonzales hasn't done anything yet :dunno:. Although, that's a good sign for the other recruiters. I mean, addressing needs with talented guys, if only LHCBS could do that...
-
Illinois Football
woof
:dubious: Beckman is supposed to be this great recruiter and he brought in a bunch of young, hungry stud recruiting assistants (two from the SEC: Billy Gonzalez and Chris Beatty :love:) who are supposed rake in way more talent than Illinois historically gets. I think the goal is to do what Alvarez did at Wisky. They were garbage before he got there and now they're good to quite good. We won shitty bowl games the past two seasons even under Zook, but yeah still pretty woof. #teambecks though, because unlike Zook he's not a mental defective (reportedly). I have hope because great recruiter + solid coach >>>>>>>> great recruiter + rough ridin' terrible, awful, comically bad coach.
I also heard he LOOOOOOVES lasagna, almost as much as Squeeky loves chicken nuggets.
-
Hey steve dave can you elaborate on the dimel rumblings? what exactly did he do?
-
Hey steve dave can you elaborate on the dimel rumblings? what exactly did he do?
that he is calling all the offensive plays now and has kind of taken the reigns of crap that bill would have previously micro managed himself. that bill has taken more of a bobby bowden veto ability role instead of a dimel calls a run play and miller calls a pass play and bill calls the play he was going to call anyway role.
-
also, I agree that this could be bill's last season
-
also, ku offered dimel their hc job
-
also, I agree that this could be bill's last season
Is Tate officially done as a football player?
-
also, I agree that this could be bill's last season
Is Tate officially done as a football player?
:dunno:
-
also, I agree that this could be bill's last season
Is Tate officially done as a football player?
:dunno:
Point being I don't think there is any way that Bill leaves while Tate is on the roster in any respect.
-
also, I agree that this could be bill's last season
Is Tate officially done as a football player?
:dunno:
Point being I don't think there is any way that Bill leaves while Tate is on the roster in any respect.
Yeah, I understood the point. Just don't know how bad his injury is. I know that someone had suggested it was career ending. Either way, I just don't think Bill has 3 more years in him under the current regime.
-
Welp, the SD's Dimel info basically makes this thread a waste of time.
Dimel it is.
Jut hope our Jimbo Fisher is less Jimbo'ey and more Bowden'ey.
-
I don't think Snyder's decision to stay our HC hinges on Tate playing or not. For all we know he may want to see Tate play from the suites instead of yelling at him for missing a tackle on special teams.
Also Dimel will be a good buffer hire, if he works out then Currie looks good, if he fails Currie is the hero for letting him go.
-
I don't think Snyder's decision to stay our HC hinges on Tate playing or not. For all we know he may want to see Tate play from the suites instead of yelling at him for missing a tackle on special teams.
Also Dimel will be a good buffer hire, if he works out then Currie looks good, if he fails Currie is the hero for letting him go.
Bill wants to coach his grandson, or at least control the reigns of the team of his grandson plays for. Dimel would satisfy that, so would Sean obviously.
-
There was an interview with Sean during the media days that said Tate was still working on his recovery, he'd just had a couple setbacks. Sounded like he'd be on the roster this fall.
-
There was an interview with Sean during the media days that said Tate was still working on his recovery, he'd just had a couple setbacks. Sounded like he'd be on the roster this fall.
having random cartilage floating around behind his kneecap is never good. Hopefully it wasn't any directly off his bone, because then he'd most likely be done.
-
What if Currie makes an amazing hire? (Petrino, Tressel, Peterson, Patterson). Is all forgiven?
-
What if Currie makes an amazing hire? (Petrino, Tressel, Peterson, Patterson). Is all forgiven?
no, not forgiven. he will do everything in his power to make an amazing hire because he has shown he's a loser at making hires and if he wants another job (he does, more than anything on this earth that's what he wants) he will have to show he can work well with his coaches and make a good hire. so, I wouldn't be shocked if he makes a good hire but it's not because he has kstate's best interest in mind. I don't think it will be anyone with any baggage though.
-
What if Currie makes an amazing hire? (Petrino, Tressel, Peterson, Patterson). Is all forgiven?
no, not forgiven. he will do everything in his power to make an amazing hire because he has shown he's a loser at making hires and if he wants another job (he does, more than anything on this earth that's what he wants) he will have to show he can work well with his coaches and make a good hire. so, I wouldn't be shocked if he makes a good hire but it's not because he has kstate's best interest in mind. I don't think it will be anyone with any baggage though.
That being said I don't really GAF about his intentions as long as it's a slam dunk hire.
-
yeah, obviously I don't either. I was just pointing out that all is not forgiven.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
Never underestimate the power of the 3 day Dallas hotel lock-in.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
"slam dunk" is a relative term. there are plenty of available slam dunks for kansas state that would not be slam dunks for Oklahoma or most other upper half BCS programs.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
i've come to this conclusion too i think. we've already seen the type of coach that currie hires, so we should expect him to do something similar when given the opportunity again and not something that would be the complete opposite. it's like when snyder came back the second time and people were all "oh man, he probably learned some stuff and will get some young dynamic recruiters on staff this go around". ummm, no. that wasn't what he was going to do because that's not what he does.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
i've come to this conclusion too i think. we've already seen the type of coach that currie hires, so we should expect him to do something similar when given the opportunity again and not something that would be the complete opposite. it's like when snyder came back the second time and people were all "oh man, he probably learned some stuff and will get some young dynamic recruiters on staff this go around". ummm, no. that wasn't what he was going to do because that's not what he does.
If Tuberville was available he would hire a Tuberville. That's what I expect to see. A coach who had some measure of success someplace where it's easier to succeed than KSU, but who still ended up not getting it done at that school....meanwhile is a "great guy" and other coaches say nice things about him.
I predict Jeff Tedford (Cal) or Mike Riley (Oregon State).
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
"slam dunk" is a relative term. there are plenty of available slam dunks for kansas state that would not be slam dunks for Oklahoma or most other upper half BCS programs.
Okay, let me clarify: anyone that thinks Currie will hire a K-state level slam dunk is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
i've come to this conclusion too i think. we've already seen the type of coach that currie hires, so we should expect him to do something similar when given the opportunity again and not something that would be the complete opposite. it's like when snyder came back the second time and people were all "oh man, he probably learned some stuff and will get some young dynamic recruiters on staff this go around". ummm, no. that wasn't what he was going to do because that's not what he does.
If Tuberville was available he would hire a Tuberville. That's what I expect to see. A coach who had some measure of success someplace where it's easier to succeed than KSU, but who still ended up not getting it done at that school....meanwhile is a "great guy" and other coaches say nice things about him.
I predict Jeff Tedford (Cal) or Mike Riley (Oregon State).
those would both be great hires for kstate imo. if we aren't going to get a young offensive coordinator type.
-
Question: Would you take Frank Solich?
I think I would, I really think I rough ridin' would. :ohno:
-
Question: Would you take Frank Solich?
I think I would, I really think I rough ridin' would. :ohno:
no, he's 68 years old
-
This is a fun list to look at.
I like looking at the really "safe" ones that are at schools that are lesser programs, and ones at bigger programs that are on hot seats.
http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CoachesHotSeatRanking.htm
-
Question: Would you take Frank Solich?
I think I would, I really think I rough ridin' would. :ohno:
no, he's 68 years old
Oh, Ok. you are right.
-
jesus, ferentz is only 55? I thought he was, like, super old.
-
Pat Fitzgerald only makes $800k, good grief.
-
Bill O'Brien isn't going to ride this thing out at Penn State is he?
-
Bill O'Brien isn't going to ride this thing out at Penn State is he?
We wouldn't hire him.
-
Bill O'Brien isn't going to ride this thing out at Penn State is he?
We wouldn't hire him.
he probably wouldn't come if we offered
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
i've come to this conclusion too i think. we've already seen the type of coach that currie hires, so we should expect him to do something similar when given the opportunity again and not something that would be the complete opposite. it's like when snyder came back the second time and people were all "oh man, he probably learned some stuff and will get some young dynamic recruiters on staff this go around". ummm, no. that wasn't what he was going to do because that's not what he does.
If Tuberville was available he would hire a Tuberville. That's what I expect to see. A coach who had some measure of success someplace where it's easier to succeed than KSU, but who still ended up not getting it done at that school....meanwhile is a "great guy" and other coaches say nice things about him.
I predict Jeff Tedford (Cal) or Mike Riley (Oregon State).
those would both be great hires for kstate imo. if we aren't going to get a young offensive coordinator type.
Neither of those are great hires, nor would they leave their current positions for KSU. They couldn't carry Tuberville's jock, (and Tommy isn't exactly setting the world on fire).
-
Bill O'Brien isn't going to ride this thing out at Penn State is he?
We wouldn't hire him.
he probably wouldn't come if we offered
He will be going back to the NFL with no child rape.
-
who would be your great hires rus
-
who would be your great hires rus
Herbstreet or Applewhite or the modern day Ron Prince.
-
who would be your great hires rus
Herbstreet or Applewhite or the modern day Ron Prince.
name your ron prince's rus
-
What happened to Leavitt? Is Leavitt even on the table anymore? Is he even in the dining room?
-
Ferentz getting fired would be great!!!
-
who would be your great hires rus
Herbstreet or Applewhite or the modern day Ron Prince.
name your ron prince's rus
I don't know who they are. That's kind of the point. Just some wacky unknown out of the box thinker is something I would really like.
-
who would be your great hires rus
Herbstreet or Applewhite or the modern day Ron Prince.
name your ron prince's rus
I don't know who they are. That's kind of the point. Just some wacky unknown out of the box thinker is something I would really like.
Better question, how would people from California select the coach for KSU and who would it be? :surprised: Feel free to discuss the differentiation between how people in the Midwest will do it and who they will select. I have a feeling this is gonna break this subject wide rough ridin' open.
-
Luke Fickell-Co Defensive Coordinator, Ohio State
Pros: Did a nice job in a tough situation at Ohio State. Was voted the AFCA college assistant coach of the year in 2010. Young coach with strong recruiting ties.
Cons: Things went South down the stretch at Ohio State for Fickell, but he was retained by Urban Meyer. Something that would not have happened if Meyer didn't think he could coach.
Why K-State: The obvious opportunity to make a name for himself without the interim tag, and Urban Meyer waiting stage left.
Why Not K-State: In this case, that's kind of hard to say outside of the obvious reasons like location.
Finally: It will be interesting to see how the dynamic of Co-DC and being on Meyer's staff plays out in the next couple of years for Fickell.
-
Fickell would be a good hire if he didn't laugh in our face
-
By reading every one of you guys' responses, this thread can be summarized as:
1. If they would be a home-run hire, they would laugh in our face
2. If they would be a great hire, they would laugh in our face
3. If they would be an above average hire, they would laugh in our face
4. If they would be an average to shitty hire, they wouldn't leave their current position
JFC people, we aren't a deserted island with no idea what football is all about. Bunch of whiny butts.
-
He will get a SLTH that folks from inside big programs will agree "yeah. that guy deserved a shot, great guy" but were unwilling to hire themselves.
This is probably our best case scenario. people are retards if they think Currie will come close to a "slam dunk".
i've come to this conclusion too i think. we've already seen the type of coach that currie hires, so we should expect him to do something similar when given the opportunity again and not something that would be the complete opposite. it's like when snyder came back the second time and people were all "oh man, he probably learned some stuff and will get some young dynamic recruiters on staff this go around". ummm, no. that wasn't what he was going to do because that's not what he does.
If Tuberville was available he would hire a Tuberville. That's what I expect to see. A coach who had some measure of success someplace where it's easier to succeed than KSU, but who still ended up not getting it done at that school....meanwhile is a "great guy" and other coaches say nice things about him.
I predict Jeff Tedford (Cal) or Mike Riley (Oregon State).
Unless Cam 2.0 appears, I could see Chizik beating the posse out of town to a KSU type job in a few years
-
By reading every one of you guys' responses, this thread can be summarized as:
1. If they would be a home-run hire, they would laugh in our face
2. If they would be a great hire, they would laugh in our face
3. If they would be an above average hire, they would laugh in our face
4. If they would be an average to shitty hire, they wouldn't leave their current position
JFC people, we aren't a deserted island with no idea what football is all about. Bunch of whiny butts.
We all thought that way about our B-Ball program, and you saw how ADJC crap his pants on that one. Every coach in slots 1-4 is going to want to get paid. Our AD is a guy who walks around with a laminated budget in his pocket. He's not going to break his budget on the FB hire. He wouldn't break his budget based on the cost of having to buy new laminated budget cards alone.
-
What happened to Leavitt? Is Leavitt even on the table anymore? Is he even in the dining room?
Leavitt :blush:
Didn't LHCBS approach Currie about hiring Leavitt as DC, but was shot down? If true, a prime reason to not like Currie.
-
What happened to Leavitt? Is Leavitt even on the table anymore? Is he even in the dining room?
Leavitt :blush:
Didn't LHCBS approach Currie about hiring Leavitt as DC, but was shot down? If true, a prime reason to not like Currie.
apparently twice. also apparently snyder tried to go over currie and talk with the animal directly and in private about currie but currie found out and snyds got in troubs.
-
that is true deputy dog. lots of other stuff too. do you know who LHC Bill Snyder hates more than anyone on this planet? yep, john currie.
-
But how does Snyder get in trouble? What is the punishment?
-
But how does Snyder get in trouble? What is the punishment?
not real troubs. just a no that's not going to happen handslap. allegedly.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
-
But how does Snyder get in trouble? What is the punishment?
Withholding of chocolate chip cookies for a determinate period of time. If Curry sees the LHC with one, he literally slaps it out of his hand. Heart-wrenching to see. Like worse than watching the part of Turner and Hooch where Hooch dies after taking a bullet saving Turner's life. Sorry for spoilers.
-
Oh, now we want Leavitt. cool.
-
bill had a lot of power before john currie came along, too much imo (especially when it came to facility improvements). but don't do crap solely to show him and those around you "who's boss".
-
Oh, now we want Leavitt. cool.
I don't
-
I mean, I would have just called Leavitt, told him he was hired. Then I would have told Currie to get on board or I would claim senior abuse or something. Bill could have Currie bought out and put on a plane in like 4.5 hours if he tried at all.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
well i suppose he could walk into vanier unannounced and start snatching cell phones from all of the coaches for starters. then maybe take away extra meals that players were given at the end of the day to try to help some of them gain weight and then force all of the players to pay in cash for the meals that they did eat for seconds. for thirds... oh hell i don't know, maybe not allow bill to hire a former head coach of south florida as his new defensive coordinator. do we need fourths and fifths?
-
i like bill blankenship. midwesterny enough to please everyone.
-
i like bill blankenship. midwesterny enough to please everyone.
rus, ron prince'y enough? basically a career HS coach
-
i like bill blankenship. midwesterny enough to please everyone.
If TU goes 9-3/10-2 the next couple of years, I'd be OK with it. I'll go to 2 or 3 TU games this year and report back. I've already shown how last year in games against non-top 7 teams they dominated.
-
sdbro used to live two blocks from the Tulsa stadium. during the OSU v. Tulsa 4 AM game or whatever their house got broken into and his laptop got stolen while they were at the game.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
well i suppose he could walk into vanier unannounced and start snatching cell phones from all of the coaches for starters. then maybe take away extra meals that players were given at the end of the day to try to help some of them gain weight and then force all of the players to pay in cash for the meals that they did eat for seconds. for thirds... oh hell i don't know, maybe not allow bill to hire a former head coach of south florida as his new defensive coordinator. do we need fourths and fifths?
I am saying Bill under utilizing his power.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
well i suppose he could walk into vanier unannounced and start snatching cell phones from all of the coaches for starters. then maybe take away extra meals that players were given at the end of the day to try to help some of them gain weight and then force all of the players to pay in cash for the meals that they did eat for seconds. for thirds... oh hell i don't know, maybe not allow bill to hire a former head coach of south florida as his new defensive coordinator. do we need fourths and fifths?
I am saying Bill under utilizing his power.
the only thing bill could do further is to turn the alumni against the AD. I'm wondering if he does publically soon. it's pretty unheard of. frank didn't even go public with his currie problems.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
Go back and watch the WSC ground breaking ceremony. Unless I missed something, you'll get a full frontal in not acknowledging someone's existence . . . I don't think Snyder even gave Currie a "for public consumption" handshake.
-
i like bill blankenship. midwesterny enough to please everyone.
rus, ron prince'y enough? basically a career HS coach
sure, why not? I would have to interview him first, though.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
well i suppose he could walk into vanier unannounced and start snatching cell phones from all of the coaches for starters. then maybe take away extra meals that players were given at the end of the day to try to help some of them gain weight and then force all of the players to pay in cash for the meals that they did eat for seconds. for thirds... oh hell i don't know, maybe not allow bill to hire a former head coach of south florida as his new defensive coordinator. do we need fourths and fifths?
I am saying Bill under utilizing his power.
the only thing bill could do further is to turn the alumni against the AD. I'm wondering if he does publically soon. it's pretty unheard of. frank didn't even go public with his currie problems.
I would think Bill placing a few phone calls to the most important boosters would of solved the Leavitt dispute in Bill's favor, right? I mean, Bill has known Jack Vanier longer than Currie has been shaving.
-
This guy can coach. If we give him 2mil, a $700,000 raise per yr and 5 yr contract, he may come. Also, BSFS improvements may help entice him to come here.
Kyle Whittingham Utah (age) 51 MWC $1,300,000 (yrs HC) 7 W65-L25 .722% (yrs @ Utah) 7 W65-L25 .722% (Last 2 yrs) 10/3, 8/5 :crossfingers:
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
Go back and watch the WSC ground breaking ceremony. Unless I missed something, you'll get a full frontal in not acknowledging someone's existence . . . I don't think Snyder even gave Currie a "for public consumption" handshake.
1. SD==>Get you don't want Leavitt, but I'll use my harshest internet language if I ever see you posting to bitch about not recruiting Florida.
2. Is LHCBS so cagey that he would force Currie to use his formal authority as AD to veto Leavitt's hire to develop a chit from Currie to make Sean successor HC?
I lose sleep over item 2.
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
Go back and watch the WSC ground breaking ceremony. Unless I missed something, you'll get a full frontal in not acknowledging someone's existence . . . I don't think Snyder even gave Currie a "for public consumption" handshake.
1. SD==>Get you don't want Leavitt, but I'll use my harshest internet language if I ever see you posting to bitch about not recruiting Florida.
2. Is LHCBS so cagey that he would force Currie to use his formal authority as AD to veto Leavitt's hire to develop a chit from Currie to make Sean successor HC?
I lose sleep over item 2.
If there's any doubt that Bill would out-scheme Currie, then, I mean, I don't even....
-
How does Bill not laugh in anyone's face who is trying to chastise him.
I honestly wouldn't even acknowledge Currie's existence when he was standing right in front of me if I was Bill. I mean, what's Currie going to do?
well i suppose he could walk into vanier unannounced and start snatching cell phones from all of the coaches for starters. then maybe take away extra meals that players were given at the end of the day to try to help some of them gain weight and then force all of the players to pay in cash for the meals that they did eat for seconds. for thirds... oh hell i don't know, maybe not allow bill to hire a former head coach of south florida as his new defensive coordinator. do we need fourths and fifths?
I am saying Bill under utilizing his power.
the only thing bill could do further is to turn the alumni against the AD. I'm wondering if he does publically soon. it's pretty unheard of. frank didn't even go public with his currie problems.
I would think Bill placing a few phone calls to the most important boosters would of solved the Leavitt dispute in Bill's favor, right? I mean, Bill has known Jack Vanier longer than Currie has been shaving.
we are no longer living in the days of our loser piece of crap president and loser dumbass AD relying on one donor and ignoring the rest. jack has much less pull than he used to.
-
we are no longer living in the days of our loser piece of crap president and loser dumbass AD relying on one donor and ignoring the rest. jack has much less pull than he used to.
Jack's also not the #1 donor. I don't know if he was back then, but he's not now.
-
This guy can coach. If we give him 2mil, a $700,000 raise per yr and 5 yr contract, he may come. Also, BSFS improvements may help entice him to come here.
Kyle Whittingham Utah (age) 51 MWC $1,300,000 (yrs HC) 7 W65-L25 .722% (yrs @ Utah) 7 W65-L25 .722% (Last 2 yrs) 10/3, 8/5 :crossfingers:
:users:
-
rich rod
-
This guy can coach. If we give him 2mil, a $700,000 raise per yr and 5 yr contract, he may come. Also, BSFS improvements may help entice him to come here.
Kyle Whittingham Utah (age) 51 MWC $1,300,000 (yrs HC) 7 W65-L25 .722% (yrs @ Utah) 7 W65-L25 .722% (Last 2 yrs) 10/3, 8/5 :crossfingers:
:users:
:dance:
-
rich rod
win % .583 and 2mil says it all.
-
rich rod
I doubt he would leave Arizona for KSU.
-
I think we would have a shot at Whittingham, but not for $2 million per year.
-
I think we would have a shot at Whittingham, but not for $2 million per year.
He is worth every penny. He is very competitive. If he can do it Utah, he surely can do it here.
-
I think we would have a shot at Whittingham, but not for $2 million per year.
He is worth every penny. He is very competitive. If he can do it Utah, he surely can do it here.
Oh, I know he's worth it. I was saying we would have to pay more than $2 million per year, not that we shouldn't pay it.
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
You forgot 4) somebody that a buddy's search firm will "identify" so we can kick them some money, preferably one that insists on reaching John at a Dallas hotel to discuss things rather than at the office in Manhattan.
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
You forgot 4) somebody that a buddy's search firm will "identify" so we can kick them some money, preferably one that insists on reaching John at a Dallas hotel to discuss things rather than at the office in Manhattan.
good point... this means we're mumped. :frown:
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
That was me.
Also, somewhere in there will be a leaked quote or two about how "we couldn't do much better."
-
Seems like it be either Synder or Currie picking our new FB coach, our chances of getting a loser are confirmed.
:dance: I just luv this guy. :love:
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
You forgot 4) somebody that a buddy's search firm will "identify" so we can kick them some money, preferably one that insists on reaching John at a Dallas hotel to discuss things rather than at the office in Manhattan.
5) new coach must inspire ADJC to mention "we couldn't find a single person that had one bad thing to say about him"
-
Seems like it be either Synder or Currie picking our new FB coach, our chances of getting a loser are confirmed.
After the bed shitting in our BB coaching hire, I'm confident our FB hire will by shitty. I have absolutely no confidence in Currie's ability to hire a coach. I just hope the war chest rumor is true and the money is so high that even Currie can't eff it up.
-
If Currie is AD when we hire a coach, the following criteria
1. Not an ounce of EMAW
2. White
3. Reasonable success and no controversy, likely fresh of a BCS school firing
Whoever said Tedford or Riley is a fuckin genius at guessing what is in the mind of Currie
You forgot 4) somebody that a buddy's search firm will "identify" so we can kick them some money, preferably one that insists on reaching John at a Dallas hotel to discuss things rather than at the office in Manhattan.
5) new coach must inspire ADJC to mention "we couldn't find a single person that had one bad thing to say about him"
6) mows his own lawn and attends press conference that announces his own firing
-
I just hope the war chest rumor is true and the money is so high that even Currie can't eff it up.
I don't see how our money on hand prevents Currie from rough ridin' up. If anything, it just allows him to blow more of our money on a mumped-up hire.
-
I just hope the war chest rumor is true and the money is so high that even Currie can't eff it up.
I don't see how our money on hand prevents Currie from rough ridin' up. If anything, it just allows him to blow more of our money on a mumped-up hire.
Yeah, we're going to spend $2.2MM on Mike Riley.
-
I just hope the war chest rumor is true and the money is so high that even Currie can't eff it up.
I don't see how our money on hand prevents Currie from rough ridin' up. If anything, it just allows him to blow more of our money on a mumped-up hire.
I agree. Paying a lot of money for a crappy coach doesn't make him a good coach. I would rather overpay for a good coach than get a crappy coach at market value, though, and it's somewhat reassuring that we at least have the ability to overpay for a good coach, or it would be if our AD wasn't so concerned with the bottom line.
-
guys, bill has 10 more good years in him. rest easy for now.
-
More money just means more to embezzle/kick to a friend.
-
guys, bill has 10 more good years in him. rest easy for now.
I am actually hoping for this. Postpone the inevitable.
-
More money just means more to embezzle/kick to a friend.
What was JC's relationship with Phil Fullmer? I know JC headed up the search that landed Lane Kiffin @ Tennessee...don't know if he was high up enough @ that time to have been influential in firing Phil or not
Not saying Phil would be a good hire, but he seems to meet a lot of the criteria being laid out
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
-
We didn't let LHCBS put something in his contract about choosing a successor did we?
-
We didn't let LHCBS put something in his contract about choosing a successor did we?
Nope. Hence massive Bill butt hurt.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
The guy grew up in Chapel Hill and got his undergrad at Wake Forrest, I don't think he is apathetic to CBB.
I am afraid he may really be that out of his element when it comes to the "between the lines" part of the AD job.
When Frank bailed and indisputably confirmed all the rumors of JC being difficult to deal with, the one hope I had that JC is some kind of ambitious evil genius with a masterplan to get his own guy in the 2nd most important job in his AD. Instead, we get who we have now and I take that as proof JC may only be the first two things and not the third.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
The guy grew up in Chapel Hill and got his undergrad at Wake Forrest, I don't think he is apathetic to CBB.
I am afraid he may really be that out of his element when it comes to the "between the lines" part of the AD job.
When Frank bailed and indisputably confirmed all the rumors of JC being difficult to deal with, the one hope I had that JC is some kind of ambitious evil genius with a masterplan to get his own guy in the 2nd most important job in his AD. Instead, we get who we have now and I take that as proof JC may only be the first two things and not the third.
i think he's a cfo who somehow randomly got involved in sports administration.
-
there is always the possiblity that Currie hired Bubbles because he paid his buddy $50k and that is the name that they gave him?
-
what if the animal hired currie for those reasons? like, the animal saw how shitty all our stuff was and decided to go out and get a guy that would make getting nice stuff his #1 priority at the cost of being good at dealing with people. maybe the animal fires his ass once we get nice stuff?
-
what if the animal hired currie for those reasons? like, the animal saw how shitty all our stuff was and decided to go out and get a guy that would make getting nice stuff his #1 priority. maybe the animal fires his ass once we get nice stuff?
He'll give Currie a reward consisting of a cruise that circles the globe 500 times.
-
what if the animal hired currie for those reasons? like, the animal saw how shitty all our stuff was and decided to go out and get a guy that would make getting nice stuff his #1 priority. maybe the animal fires his ass once we get nice stuff?
He'll give Currie a reward consisting of a cruise that circles the globe 500 times.
lol
-
what if the animal hired currie for those reasons? like, the animal saw how shitty all our stuff was and decided to go out and get a guy that would make getting nice stuff his #1 priority at the cost of being good at dealing with people. maybe the animal fires his ass once we get nice stuff?
i don't think there should be any doubt what the animal was looking for that at the time of the hire. just read what he said...
"We are excited about the future of K-State Athletics under the leadership of John Currie," Schulz said. "Throughout his career, John has demonstrated tremendous fundraising skills and fiscal management. He is a dynamic communicator with proven experience working with all sports, and his high energy, along with his integrity and character, make him the perfect fit for Kansas State."
i also think the animal wants to pretty much stay out of it. but if bill quites because of currie and academics vs sports keep butting heads on the fund raising side of things, who knows.
-
yeah, that quote spells it out. but, if the animal wanted to stay out of it, he probably should have realized he needed to hire someone who could develop effective relationships with his employees.
-
Bill wouldn't make it public enough if he leaves because of Currie, IMO.
-
I think people have identified what Currie's main talent/focus is (CFO), and he realizes that the money is in football. Basketball, while a revenue sport, isn't going to generate the margins that he needs to get what he (and maybe the Animal) wants done. Especially when the market (i.e. Kansas) is already saturated with people and sponsors pumping major dollars into the other school in our sparsely populated state.
If you're a money guy, and you see the difference in investment and interest between Kansas State and Kansas in football, and you know that your potential profit margin in football far exceeds what could be done in basketball, of course you're going to pump your money and time into that program. It's not rocket science. Especially when trying to compete with Kansas in basketball in this state is like Microsoft trying to chip away at mp3 market share with the Zune. Sure, it may be a nice product, and a lot of people will really enjoy it, but is it going to unseat the iPod? No. So, why invest more than necessary?
oscar Weber is the perfect hire for an AD that wants to focus on football and facilities improvements. Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't, and every once in a while, if the stars align, he may get to the second weekend of the tournament. He won't get you into trouble, most of the fans will eat up his schtick after he wins with Frank's players (this year at least), and Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
I love this site, but it is definitely skewed in favoritism towards basketball. An AD, especially one raised in the SEC, will look at basketball with an interest above most non-revenue sports, but it is not something they're going to want to spend a lot of time and resources on. You don't go pumping a crap ton of money and time into a product that will move your share of a small market a few percentage points. You'll pump that time and money into a venture with high margins where you can own the market. And if we can finally capitalize on the current momentum with football and facilities improvements to further the divide between us and Kansas, you bet Currie will do that because that's where our conference is headed, that's where college athletics are headed, and it's what's going to give us the money to spend on luxuries like a high-priced basketball coach and a nice basketball program.
Football first. Especially here. Especially now. Don't let basketball turn into an Asbury/Wooly dumpster fire (and it won't under Weber), and come back to it later after we've spent $150 million on the football stadium and secured our post-Snyder future.
Now, back to football coaches. Who's next Dax?
-
Bill wouldn't make it public enough if he leaves because of Currie, IMO.
Bill's not going anywhere. He's going to try and wait out Currie so he can get Sean in there. Watch.
I had a conversation with my pops about this last night. Snyder thinks retirement is stupid. He'll coach until he's 80 because he'd be bored otherwise. My bet is that he's here for at least 5 more years. He'll just be a figurehead like Bowden and Paterno and let everyone else run it while he paces the sidelines.
-
yeah, that quote spells it out. but, if the animal wanted to stay out of it, he probably should have realized he needed to hire someone who could develop effective relationships with his employees.
i would guess that in this situation, you identify one or two important job skill sets that you want experience in and then just kind of assume that your new athletic director won't start trying to actively chase off really good coaches in your two most important sports. dunno.
maybe the animal just took one of those great lakes flights that we had at the time to denver and holed up in a hotel until a friend of his that he had the school pay 50k, told him who to hire like currie basically did.
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
-
I think people have identified what Currie's main talent/focus is (CFO), and he realizes that the money is in football. Basketball, while a revenue sport, isn't going to generate the margins that he needs to get what he (and maybe the Animal) wants done. Especially when the market (i.e. Kansas) is already saturated with people and sponsors pumping major dollars into the other school in our sparsely populated state.
If you're a money guy, and you see the difference in investment and interest between Kansas State and Kansas in football, and you know that your potential profit margin in football far exceeds what could be done in basketball, of course you're going to pump your money and time into that program. It's not rocket science. Especially when trying to compete with Kansas in basketball in this state is like Microsoft trying to chip away at mp3 market share with the Zune. Sure, it may be a nice product, and a lot of people will really enjoy it, but is it going to unseat the iPod? No. So, why invest more than necessary?
oscar Weber is the perfect hire for an AD that wants to focus on football and facilities improvements. Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't, and every once in a while, if the stars align, he may get to the second weekend of the tournament. He won't get you into trouble, most of the fans will eat up his schtick after he wins with Frank's players (this year at least), and Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
I love this site, but it is definitely skewed in favoritism towards basketball. An AD, especially one raised in the SEC, will look at basketball with an interest above most non-revenue sports, but it is not something they're going to want to spend a lot of time and resources on. You don't go pumping a crap ton of money and time into a product that will move your share of a small market a few percentage points. You'll pump that time and money into a venture with high margins where you can own the market. And if we can finally capitalize on the current momentum with football and facilities improvements to further the divide between us and Kansas, you bet Currie will do that because that's where our conference is headed, that's where college athletics are headed, and it's what's going to give us the money to spend on luxuries like a high-priced basketball coach and a nice basketball program.
Football first. Especially here. Especially now. Don't let basketball turn into an Asbury/Wooly dumpster fire (and it won't under Weber), and come back to it later after we've spent $150 million on the football stadium and secured our post-Snyder future.
Now, back to football coaches. Who's next Dax?
Great post.
-
Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't.
Except that 4 out of 6 times he has missed the NCAA tournament, he was missed the NIT as well. 2 out of 3 at both Illinois and Southern Illinois. Also he missed the NIT 2 of the last 5 years. #burnthismotherfuckerdown
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
You spend 80% of your time dealing with 20% of your "problem employees".
I think. I heard that in some management class. But I think it applies here. If Frank was a big problem for him, and I'm going to assume that Frank was very high maintenance, I can see a guy like Currie wanting him gone if he didn't want to make basketball his primary focus.
I'm sure a part of their friction was Frank feeling like we didn't give him or his program enough focus, and Currie wondering why a basketball coach is demanding so much of his money/time. Both points were probably valid, but in this instance, Currie wins because we just don't have as much pie to go around here like they would at, say, South Carolina.
A good CFO puts money where it makes money. A good executive also knows where to spend his time and effort because time is money. For every meeting he had to take with Frank, or for every little fire of Frank's he had to put out, that was money he wasn't spending hitting people up for money somewhere else. I'm sure it rubbed him wrong.
-
I think people have identified what Currie's main talent/focus is (CFO), and he realizes that the money is in football. Basketball, while a revenue sport, isn't going to generate the margins that he needs to get what he (and maybe the Animal) wants done. Especially when the market (i.e. Kansas) is already saturated with people and sponsors pumping major dollars into the other school in our sparsely populated state.
If you're a money guy, and you see the difference in investment and interest between Kansas State and Kansas in football, and you know that your potential profit margin in football far exceeds what could be done in basketball, of course you're going to pump your money and time into that program. It's not rocket science. Especially when trying to compete with Kansas in basketball in this state is like Microsoft trying to chip away at mp3 market share with the Zune. Sure, it may be a nice product, and a lot of people will really enjoy it, but is it going to unseat the iPod? No. So, why invest more than necessary?
oscar Weber is the perfect hire for an AD that wants to focus on football and facilities improvements. Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't, and every once in a while, if the stars align, he may get to the second weekend of the tournament. He won't get you into trouble, most of the fans will eat up his schtick after he wins with Frank's players (this year at least), and Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
I love this site, but it is definitely skewed in favoritism towards basketball. An AD, especially one raised in the SEC, will look at basketball with an interest above most non-revenue sports, but it is not something they're going to want to spend a lot of time and resources on. You don't go pumping a crap ton of money and time into a product that will move your share of a small market a few percentage points. You'll pump that time and money into a venture with high margins where you can own the market. And if we can finally capitalize on the current momentum with football and facilities improvements to further the divide between us and Kansas, you bet Currie will do that because that's where our conference is headed, that's where college athletics are headed, and it's what's going to give us the money to spend on luxuries like a high-priced basketball coach and a nice basketball program.
Football first. Especially here. Especially now. Don't let basketball turn into an Asbury/Wooly dumpster fire (and it won't under Weber), and come back to it later after we've spent $150 million on the football stadium and secured our post-Snyder future.
Now, back to football coaches. Who's next Dax?
DAMN! That was a quality post, albeit a long one!
-
I don't like your tone, Pan. You aren't smarter or more rational than anyone here.
Currie mumped up the basketball situation, plain and simple. Football has nothing to do with it.
-
Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't.
Except that 4 out of 6 times he has missed the NCAA tournament, he was missed the NIT as well. 2 out of 3 at both Illinois and Southern Illinois. Also he missed the NIT 2 of the last 5 years. #burnthismotherfuckerdown
Yeah, but I think he'll do better there than at Illinois (overall, not in individual season success). I just think it's a better fit here for him.
People can argue with me on that, but I'm not going to fight about it here. Mine feelings are more subjective, and a lot of the burn it down guys have already crafted a million arguments with valid objective analysis.
Look, we can sit here and argue over, "Why Weber?" But the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't Weber, it was going to be someone else that didn't live up to our expectations. To get a basketball coach to move from job X to job Y, even if it's a lateral gig, you're going to overpay, and you're going to overpay big. I'm sure it would have cost us at least $2.X million to get Tad Boyle. Now, when you look at it on it's face, you think, "Yeah, I'd rather have Tad Boyle." But if you're a money guy, and Currie is a money guy, are you going to say, "Yeah, I'm going to pay $2.X million for Tad Boyle,"? No, you're not. You're going to set your price point and find a coach that fits the price point.
We got oscar Weber for less than $2 million a year (for a while at least). His staff isn't overly expensive. We're recruiting in easily accessible areas (Chicago, Dallas) from our airport. Again, when you look at it from a financial perspective and not a fan perspective, this is exactly the choice John Currie was going to make. How many times are you going to get a Final Four/Consensus Coach of the year for less than $2 million? Not many. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, that's what's going through the money guy's head.
Also, throw the SIU crap out. It was a mess when he took it over. He built that program from nothing. Let's give him credit for that. He didn't get the UI job for being a crappy mid-major coach.
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
You spend 80% of your time dealing with 20% of your "problem employees".
I think. I heard that in some management class. But I think it applies here. If Frank was a big problem for him, and I'm going to assume that Frank was very high maintenance, I can see a guy like Currie wanting him gone if he didn't want to make basketball his primary focus.
I'm sure a part of their friction was Frank feeling like we didn't give him or his program enough focus, and Currie wondering why a basketball coach is demanding so much of his money/time. Both points were probably valid, but in this instance, Currie wins because we just don't have as much pie to go around here like they would at, say, South Carolina.
A good CFO puts money where it makes money. A good executive also knows where to spend his time and effort because time is money. For every meeting he had to take with Frank, or for every little fire of Frank's he had to put out, that was money he wasn't spending hitting people up for money somewhere else. I'm sure it rubbed him wrong.
I don't think Frank wanted any time with Currie. :dunno:
Mods, edit the gif of Currie being creepy at the Nebraska hoops game into this post.
-
Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't.
Except that 4 out of 6 times he has missed the NCAA tournament, he was missed the NIT as well. 2 out of 3 at both Illinois and Southern Illinois. Also he missed the NIT 2 of the last 5 years. #burnthismotherfuckerdown
1. Yeah, but I think he'll do better there than at Illinois (overall, not in individual season success). I just think it's a better fit here for him.
2. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, that's what's going through the money guy's head.
3. Also, throw the SIU crap out. It was a mess when he took it over. He built that program from nothing. Let's give him credit for that. He didn't get the UI job for being a crappy mid-major coach.
1. Hope so
2. yup
3. The point wasn't that he missed twice at SIU, that was to be expected, just that they weren't all at SIU.
-
Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't.
Except that 4 out of 6 times he has missed the NCAA tournament, he was missed the NIT as well. 2 out of 3 at both Illinois and Southern Illinois. Also he missed the NIT 2 of the last 5 years. #burnthismotherfuckerdown
Yeah, but I think he'll do better there than at Illinois (overall, not in individual season success). I just think it's a better fit here for him.
People can argue with me on that, but I'm not going to fight about it here. Mine feelings are more subjective, and a lot of the burn it down guys have already crafted a million arguments with valid objective analysis.
Look, we can sit here and argue over, "Why Weber?" But the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't Weber, it was going to be someone else that didn't live up to our expectations. To get a basketball coach to move from job X to job Y, even if it's a lateral gig, you're going to overpay, and you're going to overpay big. I'm sure it would have cost us at least $2.X million to get Tad Boyle. Now, when you look at it on it's face, you think, "Yeah, I'd rather have Tad Boyle." But if you're a money guy, and Currie is a money guy, are you going to say, "Yeah, I'm going to pay $2.X million for Tad Boyle,"? No, you're not. You're going to set your price point and find a coach that fits the price point.
We got oscar Weber for less than $2 million a year (for a while at least). His staff isn't overly expensive. We're recruiting in easily accessible areas (Chicago, Dallas) from our airport. Again, when you look at it from a financial perspective and not a fan perspective, this is exactly the choice John Currie was going to make. How many times are you going to get a Final Four/Consensus Coach of the year for less than $2 million? Not many. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, that's what's going through the money guy's head.
Also, throw the SIU crap out. It was a mess when he took it over. He built that program from nothing. Let's give him credit for that. He didn't get the UI job for being a crappy mid-major coach.
How much would #Gottlieb4KSU have cost? Currie could've saved some money on the intro presser itself by outsourcing that whole thing to KK.
-
I don't like your tone, Pan. You aren't smarter or more rational than anyone here.
Currie mumped up the basketball situation, plain and simple. Football has nothing to do with it.
I never said that I was.
And people are acting like Currie was going to go out there and spend a bunch of money on a known commodity or any money on an unknown commodity (i.e. Gottlieb) for a sport we aren't going to make a lot of money on regardless, and you know he's not going to do that.
Regardless of whether or not it would be the hire I would have made, or whether or not I like the hire is irrelevant. The general tone is that Currie won't hire a good football coach because he screwed up the Weber hire. I contend that's not the case because Currie doesn't give a crap about basketball (or no more than he has to) and he made what he considers to be a safe choice based on comfort and economics.
As stated, he had a hand in Tennessee hiring Lane Kiffin. Obviously, that's exactly the kind of football hire we'll need to make, so his track record states that he's not afraid to think outside the box in football because, again, that's where the money is.
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
You spend 80% of your time dealing with 20% of your "problem employees".
I think. I heard that in some management class. But I think it applies here. If Frank was a big problem for him, and I'm going to assume that Frank was very high maintenance, I can see a guy like Currie wanting him gone if he didn't want to make basketball his primary focus.
I'm sure a part of their friction was Frank feeling like we didn't give him or his program enough focus, and Currie wondering why a basketball coach is demanding so much of his money/time. Both points were probably valid, but in this instance, Currie wins because we just don't have as much pie to go around here like they would at, say, South Carolina.
A good CFO puts money where it makes money. A good executive also knows where to spend his time and effort because time is money. For every meeting he had to take with Frank, or for every little fire of Frank's he had to put out, that was money he wasn't spending hitting people up for money somewhere else. I'm sure it rubbed him wrong.
a couple of things...
-brevity is the soul of wit. remember that for future posts.
-currie sure has put a lot of time and money into the basketball practice facility given how little amount of time and money you suggest he wants to spend on basketball.
-i'm pretty sure frank with have been pretty happy with less currie, not more like you suggest.
-keeping basketball at a high level did not have to mean taking away from football, like you suggest. i expect people to walk and chew gum at the same time.
-losing frank and replacing him with weber provides a data point that suggests currie cannot keep attractive coaches and cannont hire attractive coaches. no more/no less.
-nobody here has ever been against pumping money into football like you seem to think and i personally resent you trying to paint it that way. we all wish they'd pump more into it. like flying the players to dallas for their bowl game instead of trying to make them bus down there for starters.
-
The general tone is that Currie won't hire a good football coach because he screwed up the Weber hire.
My tone is that Currie won't hire a good football coach because the word is out among coaches that Currie's a douchebag, and money can't buy your AD not being a douchebag. Is that how the song goes?
-
Weber will go to some tournaments, he will most likely make the NIT when he doesn't.
Except that 4 out of 6 times he has missed the NCAA tournament, he was missed the NIT as well. 2 out of 3 at both Illinois and Southern Illinois. Also he missed the NIT 2 of the last 5 years. #burnthismotherfuckerdown
Yeah, but I think he'll do better there than at Illinois (overall, not in individual season success). I just think it's a better fit here for him.
People can argue with me on that, but I'm not going to fight about it here. Mine feelings are more subjective, and a lot of the burn it down guys have already crafted a million arguments with valid objective analysis.
Look, we can sit here and argue over, "Why Weber?" But the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't Weber, it was going to be someone else that didn't live up to our expectations. To get a basketball coach to move from job X to job Y, even if it's a lateral gig, you're going to overpay, and you're going to overpay big. I'm sure it would have cost us at least $2.X million to get Tad Boyle. Now, when you look at it on it's face, you think, "Yeah, I'd rather have Tad Boyle." But if you're a money guy, and Currie is a money guy, are you going to say, "Yeah, I'm going to pay $2.X million for Tad Boyle,"? No, you're not. You're going to set your price point and find a coach that fits the price point.
We got oscar Weber for less than $2 million a year (for a while at least). His staff isn't overly expensive. We're recruiting in easily accessible areas (Chicago, Dallas) from our airport. Again, when you look at it from a financial perspective and not a fan perspective, this is exactly the choice John Currie was going to make. How many times are you going to get a Final Four/Consensus Coach of the year for less than $2 million? Not many. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, that's what's going through the money guy's head.
Also, throw the SIU crap out. It was a mess when he took it over. He built that program from nothing. Let's give him credit for that. He didn't get the UI job for being a crappy mid-major coach.
How much would #Gottlieb4KSU have cost? Currie could've saved some money on the intro presser itself by outsourcing that whole thing to KK.
I wanted Gottlieb as bad as anyone here, but I interact with Currie clones (albeit in a business sense) every single day, and when your butt is on the line, you don't make that hire even if you think it's a good idea.
CFO's aren't prone to making aggressive, dynamic decisions. They're bean counters. They want you to give them a bunch of ROI reports and references before they buy something. They'll tell you that if they "screw this up" they'll be out of a job, so they are more conservative and judicious than nearly anyone out there based on a set of criteria that they feel comfortable associating themselves with. It's almost as much about being comfortable telling your CEO why it failed as opposed to why it worked.
And, again, Currie is the ultimate CFO.
-
I don't like your tone, Pan. You aren't smarter or more rational than anyone here.
Currie mumped up the basketball situation, plain and simple. Football has nothing to do with it.
I never said that I was.
And people are acting like Currie was going to go out there and spend a bunch of money on a known commodity or any money on an unknown commodity (i.e. Gottlieb) for a sport we aren't going to make a lot of money on regardless, and you know he's not going to do that.
Regardless of whether or not it would be the hire I would have made, or whether or not I like the hire is irrelevant. The general tone is that Currie won't hire a good football coach because he screwed up the Weber hire. I contend that's not the case because Currie doesn't give a crap about basketball (or no more than he has to) and he made what he considers to be a safe choice based on comfort and economics.
The football coaching search will be no different.
-
I don't like your tone, Pan. You aren't smarter or more rational than anyone here.
Currie mumped up the basketball situation, plain and simple. Football has nothing to do with it.
I never said that I was.
And people are acting like Currie was going to go out there and spend a bunch of money on a known commodity or any money on an unknown commodity (i.e. Gottlieb) for a sport we aren't going to make a lot of money on regardless, and you know he's not going to do that.
Regardless of whether or not it would be the hire I would have made, or whether or not I like the hire is irrelevant. The general tone is that Currie won't hire a good football coach because he screwed up the Weber hire. I contend that's not the case because Currie doesn't give a crap about basketball (or no more than he has to) and he made what he considers to be a safe choice based on comfort and economics.
As stated, he had a hand in Tennessee hiring Lane Kiffin. Obviously, that's exactly the kind of football hire we'll need to make, so his track record states that he's not afraid to think outside the box in football because, again, that's where the money is.
if by "having a hand in tennessee hiring lane kiffin" you mean he "worked at tennessee when they hired kiffin" then i agree. if you mean anything more then i disagree. tennesse would've hired kiffin regardless of whether or not john currie was employed there at the time.
-
how great would a bob krause / john currie tag team be? currie can crunch numbers and nerd out on spreadsheets all day and bob can completely pull off cowboy wear like a badass while he slugs scotch with the kansas hicks and pals around with the coaches who all love him.
-
So, now that we're agreed that Currie is a CFO concerned almost solely with the bottom line, how do we get rid of him?
-
how great would a bob krause / john currie tag team be? currie can crunch numbers and nerd out on spreadsheets all day and bob can completely pull off cowboy wear like a badass while he slugs scotch with the kansas hicks and pals around with the coaches who all love him.
I think I offered Broiler that exact role during the MOAP2.5 game.
-
So, now that we're agreed that Currie is a CFO concerned almost solely with the bottom line, how do we get rid of him?
he's more concerned with getting the hell out of manhattan
-
So, now that we're agreed that Currie is a CFO concerned almost solely with the bottom line, how do we get rid of him?
he's more concerned with getting the hell out of manhattan
:dance: :bball:
-
So, now that we're agreed that Currie is a CFO concerned almost solely with the bottom line, how do we get rid of him?
he's more concerned with getting the hell out of manhattan
Really sucks for us how much more employable Frank was than Currie.
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
You spend 80% of your time dealing with 20% of your "problem employees".
I think. I heard that in some management class. But I think it applies here. If Frank was a big problem for him, and I'm going to assume that Frank was very high maintenance, I can see a guy like Currie wanting him gone if he didn't want to make basketball his primary focus.
I'm sure a part of their friction was Frank feeling like we didn't give him or his program enough focus, and Currie wondering why a basketball coach is demanding so much of his money/time. Both points were probably valid, but in this instance, Currie wins because we just don't have as much pie to go around here like they would at, say, South Carolina.
A good CFO puts money where it makes money. A good executive also knows where to spend his time and effort because time is money. For every meeting he had to take with Frank, or for every little fire of Frank's he had to put out, that was money he wasn't spending hitting people up for money somewhere else. I'm sure it rubbed him wrong.
a couple of things...
-brevity is the soul of whit. remember that for future posts.
-currie sure has put a lot of time and money into the basketball practice facility given how little amount of time and money you suggest he wants to spend on basketball.
-i'm pretty sure frank with have been pretty happy with less currie, not more like you suggest.
-keeping basketball at a high level did not have to mean taking away from football, like you suggest. i expect people to walk and chew gum at the same time.
-losing frank and replacing him with weber provides a data point that suggests currie cannot keep attractive coaches and cannont hire attractive coaches. no more/no less.
-nobody here has ever been against pumping money into football like you seem to think and i personally resent you trying to paint it that way. we all wish they'd pump more into it. like flying the players to dallas for their bowl game instead of trying to make them bus down there for starters.
All valid points. We needed a practice facility, and we had a considerable number of people willing to privately contribute money for it. Why not build it when people will pay for it?
Frank wanted less Currie from a compliance standpoint. That's not exactly what I was talking about.
I personally think that Currie's not as interested in keeping us at a Top 25 level in basketball as much as he is keeping people paying for the games. I agree that I have higher expectations (as you do) and do not like how the process was handled in basketball. I don't want to give the impression that I support Currie's decision or that I "like" him. I do not on either account. I'm just stating what I think his thought process was.
As far as the keeping coaches/hiring coaches thing, it's a valid point. We have one data point. It's bad. We have two data points at Tennessee, and they're good. Maybe he's good at suggesting and supporting high risk/high reward hires when it's not his butt on the line. That is completely probable.
I never said anyone was against pumping money into football, I wasn't talking down to anyone here, and if it came out that way, I didn't mean for it to. But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me. Doesn't mean I like it, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the anger, and it doesn't mean that I think people here don't get it. I do think people on this site place more of an emphasis on basketball than any other KSU site out there, and I think people are more emotionally attached to it. Currie strikes me as a demographic guy, and I'm assuming he aims for the t-shirt KU basketball/KSU football fans and will make most decisions accordingly.
I have the utmost respect for all of the regulars here, so my intent is not to disrespect anyone. I've been here long enough that you guys know better than that. Also, I wish that I could say more with less, and I've always tried to improve in that regard.
-
So, now that we're agreed that Currie is a CFO concerned almost solely with the bottom line, how do we get rid of him?
he's more concerned with getting the hell out of manhattan
I think it would be best for all parties if that were to happen ASAP.
-
he never hired anyone at TN. quit saying that.
-
Football/Basketball are not mutually exclusive and I'm sick of people acting like killing basketball was to help football. We ran 23 million in the black, we have resources for both.
-
Panj should take out all the parts about how he hates Currie too and spin everything much better for Currie and then write Currie's cover letters for him. Ultimately, what we need is a sucker to take Currie off our hands.
-
Football/Basketball are not mutually exclusive and I'm sick of people acting like killing basketball was to help football. We ran 23 million in the black, we have resources for both.
Didn't someone say that the accounting practices made us report a lot of the donations for the West Side thing up front? Therefore, we're not really running $23 million in the black because that money was spoken for?
Again, I could be wrong, but I thought I read/heard that.
-
Panj should take out all the parts about how he hates Currie too and spin everything much better for Currie and then write Currie's cover letters for him. Ultimately, what we need is a sucker to take Currie off our hands.
If it got him out of here faster, I'd gladly do it.
-
Can I also say that a part of me wants Currie here for the plain and simple reason that I feel he's one of the best Sean deterrents?
I'm sure most ADs probably would be, but again, that's the ultimate nightmare scenario in my head, so a part of me is comfortable with him being here knowing that Sean has absolutely no chance at getting the job while Currie is here. I literally do worry that the next AD may be weak and cave to Bill.
-
Didn't someone say that the accounting practices made us report a lot of the donations for the West Side thing up front? Therefore, we're not really running $23 million in the black because that money was spoken for?
Again, I could be wrong, but I thought I read/heard that.
Yeah, Currie (or Mary Ellen Sue Louise).
http://www.kstatesports.com/blog/2012/05/letter-from-ad-john-currie---may-4.html
-
he never hired anyone at TN. quit saying that.
He never hired. The articles always say, "He had a hand."
So, no, it's not the same thing so I shouldn't imply that it is. Point taken.
-
you can bet your ass we'd have head coach sean snyder if wefald was still running crap into the ground
-
Didn't someone say that the accounting practices made us report a lot of the donations for the West Side thing up front? Therefore, we're not really running $23 million in the black because that money was spoken for?
Again, I could be wrong, but I thought I read/heard that.
Yeah, Currie (or Mary Ellen Sue Louise).
http://www.kstatesports.com/blog/2012/05/letter-from-ad-john-currie---may-4.html
Oh, well screw that then. Nevermind.
-
I literally do worry that the next AD may be Bill.
FYP
-
the animal won't hire bill as ad. this isn't NU.
-
Currie can just be left to go work on the stuff he wants to deal with. He won't have to spend a bunch of time worrying about a demanding basketball coach, nor will he have to worry about dealing with constant re-negotiations when other schools make a run at him every year.
Agree with all the points about why football needs to be the profit-maker, but didn't Currie spend a lot of time dealing (rough ridin') with basketball by choice? I mean, Frank didn't insist that Currie come to his Pittsburgh hotel room the night before the Syracuse game when Currie could've been back in Manhattan picking out hardhats for the first WSC guided tour.
You spend 80% of your time dealing with 20% of your "problem employees".
I think. I heard that in some management class. But I think it applies here. If Frank was a big problem for him, and I'm going to assume that Frank was very high maintenance, I can see a guy like Currie wanting him gone if he didn't want to make basketball his primary focus.
I'm sure a part of their friction was Frank feeling like we didn't give him or his program enough focus, and Currie wondering why a basketball coach is demanding so much of his money/time. Both points were probably valid, but in this instance, Currie wins because we just don't have as much pie to go around here like they would at, say, South Carolina.
A good CFO puts money where it makes money. A good executive also knows where to spend his time and effort because time is money. For every meeting he had to take with Frank, or for every little fire of Frank's he had to put out, that was money he wasn't spending hitting people up for money somewhere else. I'm sure it rubbed him wrong.
a couple of things...
-brevity is the soul of whit. remember that for future posts.
-currie sure has put a lot of time and money into the basketball practice facility given how little amount of time and money you suggest he wants to spend on basketball.
-i'm pretty sure frank with have been pretty happy with less currie, not more like you suggest.
-keeping basketball at a high level did not have to mean taking away from football, like you suggest. i expect people to walk and chew gum at the same time.
-losing frank and replacing him with weber provides a data point that suggests currie cannot keep attractive coaches and cannont hire attractive coaches. no more/no less.
-nobody here has ever been against pumping money into football like you seem to think and i personally resent you trying to paint it that way. we all wish they'd pump more into it. like flying the players to dallas for their bowl game instead of trying to make them bus down there for starters.
Why not build it when people will pay for it?
Frank wanted less Currie from a compliance standpoint. That's not exactly what I was talking about.
I personally think that Currie's not as interested in keeping us at a Top 25 level in basketball.
As far as the keeping coaches/hiring coaches thing, it's a valid point. We have one data point. It's bad. We have two data points at Tennessee, and they're good. Maybe he's good at suggesting and supporting high risk/high reward hires when it's not his butt on the line. That is completely probable.
you don't build it because it took up a lot of his time. time that he could've been spending on football according to you. i'm basically just making fun of your point about how currie doesn't have the time to deal with bball here.
frank wanted less of currie from every standpoint. compliance yeah prob, but i also bet that frank also didn't appreciate being forced to write that letter to the collegian about not cussing anymore, etc along with a million other things that had nothing to do w/ compliance. currie micro manages everybody. everybody.
currie was not the athletic director at tennessee. he does not get a plus or a minus for those hires, just like laird veatch doesn't get one for the weber hire.
-
he never hired anyone at TN. quit saying that.
He never hired. The articles always say, "He had a hand."
So, no, it's not the same thing so I shouldn't imply that it is. Point taken.
yeah, i mean there was a good stretch of time where my resume stated that i managed a restaurant/bar while i was in college. guess what? i really was just a bartender.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
-
But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me.
How? Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years. How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint? That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money. Weber was far from a hot commodity. A BCS job was in and of itself a gift. To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane. Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job. Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation. Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way. $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.
-
you don't build it because it took up a lot of his time. time that he could've been spending on football according to you. i'm basically just making fun of your point about how currie doesn't have the time to deal with bball here.
frank wanted less of currie from every standpoint. compliance yeah prob, but i also bet that frank also didn't appreciate being forced to write that letter to the collegian about not cussing anymore, etc along with a million other things that had nothing to do w/ compliance. currie micro manages everybody. everybody.
currie was not the athletic director at tennessee. he does not get a plus or a minus for those hires, just like laird veatch doesn't get one for the weber hire.
A guy like Currie will build anything big if he doesn't have to find the money to pay for it. The momentum for the BTF had already started before he got here; he probably didn't have to do much to get it going.
I don't disagree that Currie isn't a micro-manager. Frank was doing things that were not to his liking, so he spent time dealing with "Frank things" that he probably didn't want to deal with. You did a good job listing those examples. I feel comfortable assuming that he didn't want to go deal with "Frank things". I do not disagree with you that he should be able to deal with that. I am fully in your corner on that and also agree that the whole thing with Frank hurt him here, hurt him elsewhere, and set his career back at least a few years.
Again, daris, I don't think Currie should be the AD here. What happened this spring was a clown show. I'm not trying to defend.
-
i get the feeling after reading some of rick daris's posts in this thread that he has a huge crush on john currie. go marry him why don't you? :lol:
-
question- who wins a make out session between john currie and rick daris?
answer- the viewers :lol: omg K-S-U WILDCATS! :cheers:
-
But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me.
How? Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years. How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint? That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money. Weber was far from a hot commodity. A BCS job was in and of itself a gift. To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane. Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job. Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation. Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way. $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.
He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.
Agreed that it's too much. But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.
-
But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me.
How? Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years. How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint? That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money. Weber was far from a hot commodity. A BCS job was in and of itself a gift. To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane. Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job. Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation. Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way. $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.
He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.
Agreed that it's too much. But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.
i think currie contacted a bunch of coaches and said "ok, here is what i already have on my ledger. take it or leave it. i will not pay you a dime more or a dime less than what frank was scheduled to make." weber was the first to say yes.
-
But I have no idea how they landed on that number
That's what the budget was for a KSU basketball coach for the next 5 years. Doubt there was much negotiation.
I think we confirmed this months ago, but Bread sounds like he knows without us searching; Is Weber's 1.3/year post-firing paid regardless of him getting a new job and on top of what he gets paid at his new job, or does the new job's salary mitigate - and in this case, eliminate - what Illinois has to pay him?
-
also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.
sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up. that's the most logical scenario.
-
But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me.
How? Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years. How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint? That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money. Weber was far from a hot commodity. A BCS job was in and of itself a gift. To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane. Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job. Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation. Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way. $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.
He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.
Agreed that it's too much. But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.
i think currie contacted a bunch of coaches and said "ok, here is what i already have on my ledger. take it or leave it. i will not pay you a dime more or a dime less than what frank was scheduled to make." weber was the first to say yes.
I believe that as well, but that's just an assumption on my part.
-
also, i don't believe the whole bill pusing for sean as HC.
I don't really have many "inside" guys, but this is one piece of information that I feel comfortable in believing.
Capt. Crap somewhat alluded to it the other day as well.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
-
I would prefer the head coach have some experience coaching under Snyder or a Snyder disciple.
-
But I have no idea how they landed on that number
That's what the budget was for a KSU basketball coach for the next 5 years. Doubt there was much negotiation.
I think we confirmed this months ago, but Bread sounds like he knows without us searching; Is Weber's 1.3/year post-firing paid regardless of him getting a new job and on top of what he gets paid at his new job, or does the new job's salary mitigate - and in this case, eliminate - what Illinois has to pay him?
He gets it all regardless of future compensation. No offset. Our former AD was the tuckiest of tucks. He hired Weber in the first place because he had been jilted by Kruger and Self. He knew Weber would never leave of his own accord nor get the program in trouble with the NCAA. Better to be safe than good. To be honest though, who in their right mind would have thought it would matter, amirite? ;)
-
also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.
sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up. that's the most logical scenario.
I think Bill is pushing for Sean to get another coaching job somewhere on his coaching tree and does not realistically expect him to be named head coach here.
-
I have a hard time believing that Bill would feel wronged if the AD didn't promote a Special Teams Coordinator to Head Coach.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubt Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
yep. quite the pickle here.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.
Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.
Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.
South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read. We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.
You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year. I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.
If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame. Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal. I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.
And maybe that's my ultimate point. We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did. He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.
-
also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.
sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up. that's the most logical scenario.
I think Bill is pushing for Sean to get another coaching job somewhere on his coaching tree and does not realistically expect him to be named head coach here.
My feel is Bill will want it to go to Dimel and he'll expect Sean to be kept on staff. Sean was never replaced in his admin role so I tend to believe him going on staff was a cost cutting move to eliminate a football position. His pay in the admin role was higher then what most schools pay for that and I'm guessing Currie balked at it so Bill put him on staff rather then cutting his pay. Previously Sean had an associate AD title along with the football title to justify the pay but my guess Currie didn't like that. I think Sean still does a lot of the same admin functions he was doing before.
I'll be curious to see if Joe Gordon's position is ever filled I have a feeling it won't be. I believe Gordon will be on the coaching staff at some point before Bill retires. Maybe as soon as next year depending on how long Hayes keeps coaching.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.
Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.
South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read. We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.
You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year. I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.
If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame. Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal. I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.
And maybe that's my ultimate point. We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did. He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.
A few hundred grand a year is nothing though. Frank would bring in that much incremental revenue to the bball team with ease. It wasn't a financial decision if it was then it would have been a no brainer to keep Frank.
-
also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.
Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).
We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.
Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.
South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read. We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.
You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year. I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.
If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame. Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal. I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.
And maybe that's my ultimate point. We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did. He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.
yeah, Frank would have taken less than 1.9 if he didn't hate Currie. I should have specified that he was over-priced for non-elite jobs assuming he didn't hate his boss.
Also, you're ignoring the revenue we will lose under Weber. (It will be more than the savings in salary.)
-
I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this. I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone.
-
yeah, Frank would have taken less than 1.9 if he didn't hate Currie. I should have specified that he was over-priced for non-elite jobs assuming he didn't hate his boss.
Also, you're ignoring the revenue we will lose under Weber. (It will be more than the savings in salary.)
This goes back to my point where if it fails (which is entirely possible) Currie can go to Schulz and rationalize his safe hire because it makes sense on paper.
Had he hired Gottlieb (which both you and I were adamantly in support of), and it failed, it would have been harder to rationalize as he didn't have previous coaching experience.
There are a plethora of people in between Gottlieb and Weber in terms of price and experience, that would have been better choices, but that's something we can probably better identify than John Currie because we probably spend more time looking at crap like this than he does. He hires a search firm, tells them what he's willing to pay, they give him a list of names, and he locks himself in a hotel room and starts calling people. We'd debate the merits of Doug Gottlieb, and he's got a list of guys that includes oscar Weber, Doc Sadler, Larry Eustachy, and God knows who else.
Based on what we were willing to pay, if he wanted BCS coaching experience (and I'm betting he did), I'm betting Weber probably was the best fish in that pond. Which goes back to my point that he probably didn't want to spend that much time or money on basketball, therefore, Weber was the perfect fit. Won't cost more than what was budgeted, won't cause issues from a compliance standpoint, and won't force him to deal with tuck donors that don't like a coach that swears.
Check, check, and check. Get oscar's measurements and fit him for a purple jacket.
-
I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this. I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone.
This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this. Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.
-
I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this. I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone.
This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this. Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.
he promoted him from never coached in his life to associate head coach.
-
I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this. I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone.
This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this. Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.
Nope.
-
I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this. I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone.
This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this. Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.
he promoted him from never coached in his life to associate head coach.
Yes, and special teams coach. Both are bullshit jobs/titles and everyone knows it. If he put him as D-Coord/Associate Head Coach, I would be a lot more concerned.
-
Associate Head Coach is the figurehead second in command position given to all sons of the head coach when his desire is to have him take over on his retirement.
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/players/
-
young beams is not nearly as handsome and rugged as his old man
-
Associate Head Coach is the figurehead second in command position given to all sons of the head coach when his desire is to have him take over on his retirement.
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/players/
:sdeek: How could they do Bud Foster like that? He's earned it goddamnit. :shakesfist:
-
Associate Head Coach is the figurehead second in command position given to all sons of the head coach when his desire is to have him take over on his retirement.
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/players/
:ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_fObSStlFSGg%2FR6HiACf6gHI%2FAAAAAAAAA9k%2FkHowwBsYbQU%2Fs320%2Fsutton.jpg&hash=54b482a4dade054c36f474e11102ccc88349f11f)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fvisual%2Fwhatshot%2Fpatknight.jpg&hash=c8250b08cb53856908b6ba743c98fb76cd27797c)
-
Associate Head Coach is the figurehead second in command position given to all sons of the head coach when his desire is to have him take over on his retirement.
http://www.hokiesports.com/football/players/
:ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_fObSStlFSGg%2FR6HiACf6gHI%2FAAAAAAAAA9k%2FkHowwBsYbQU%2Fs320%2Fsutton.jpg&hash=54b482a4dade054c36f474e11102ccc88349f11f)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fvisual%2Fwhatshot%2Fpatknight.jpg&hash=c8250b08cb53856908b6ba743c98fb76cd27797c)
Oh man... I forgot about Sutton's spawn. Good god that was entertaining.
-
yeah, Frank would have taken less than 1.9 if he didn't hate Currie. I should have specified that he was over-priced for non-elite jobs assuming he didn't hate his boss.
Also, you're ignoring the revenue we will lose under Weber. (It will be more than the savings in salary.)
This goes back to my point where if it fails (which is entirely possible) Currie can go to Schulz and rationalize his safe hire because it makes sense on paper.
Had he hired Gottlieb (which both you and I were adamantly in support of), and it failed, it would have been harder to rationalize as he didn't have previous coaching experience.
There are a plethora of people in between Gottlieb and Weber in terms of price and experience, that would have been better choices, but that's something we can probably better identify than John Currie because we probably spend more time looking at crap like this than he does. He hires a search firm, tells them what he's willing to pay, they give him a list of names, and he locks himself in a hotel room and starts calling people. We'd debate the merits of Doug Gottlieb, and he's got a list of guys that includes oscar Weber, Doc Sadler, Larry Eustachy, and God knows who else.
Based on what we were willing to pay, if he wanted BCS coaching experience (and I'm betting he did), I'm betting Weber probably was the best fish in that pond. Which goes back to my point that he probably didn't want to spend that much time or money on basketball, therefore, Weber was the perfect fit. Won't cost more than what was budgeted, won't cause issues from a compliance standpoint, and won't force him to deal with tuck donors that don't like a coach that swears.
Check, check, and check. Get oscar's measurements and fit him for a purple jacket.
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
I will contend that Currie will put up with more crap from a successful football coach that hates his guts because that's his main focus. He would pull the exact same crap with Snyder that he pulled with Martin if Snyder coached basketball (IMO).
I personally think that Currie feels like Martin wasn't that great and could be replaced by someone else. Most of us disagree with that.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
What was the hassle? He was wildly popular with fans and won more than expected 4 out of 5 seasons.
-
Let me clarify on the Snyder thing; if Snyder were a basketball coach, and it was Snyder Family Colosseum, Currie may not push him out. I guess I'm just saying he wouldn't necessarily care so much about making it worth his while to retain him, if that makes sense.
From a financial perspective, Snyder is a great coach for Currie. The dollars spent per win is amazing from his perspective. He'll put up with that hate because the success Snyder provides at budget prices is perfect for him and why he'll put up with being completely despised in public and private from him.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
What was the hassle? He was wildly popular with fans and won more than expected 4 out of 5 seasons.
You're baiting me. You know exactly what hassle that I'm talking about. :nono:
Frank didn't fit Currie's mold for a coach. That wasn't exactly a secret. He wanted Frank to tone a lot of stuff down, and Frank didn't.
Again, I think Currie felt he could get Frank success levels (more or less) with less "Frank" for the same (or less) money.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
What was the hassle? He was wildly popular with fans and won more than expected 4 out of 5 seasons.
You're baiting me. You know exactly what hassle that I'm talking about. :nono:
Frank didn't fit Currie's mold for a coach. That wasn't exactly a secret. He wanted Frank to tone a lot of stuff down, and Frank didn't.
Again, I think Currie felt he could get Frank success levels (more or less) with less "Frank" for the same (or less) money.
which gets back to my original point that Currie is a dumbass loser who mumped up the basketball coaching situation.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
What was the hassle? He was wildly popular with fans and won more than expected 4 out of 5 seasons.
You're baiting me. You know exactly what hassle that I'm talking about. :nono:
Frank didn't fit Currie's mold for a coach. That wasn't exactly a secret. He wanted Frank to tone a lot of stuff down, and Frank didn't.
Again, I think Currie felt he could get Frank success levels (more or less) with less "Frank" for the same (or less) money.
which gets back to my original point that Currie is a dumbass loser who mumped up the basketball coaching situation.
I never denied that. I simply rationalized his position.
Currie has put the focus on football. He doesn't care as much about basketball and wants someone there that won't be a bother to him. The problem is that he gets bothered pretty easily. So, he's going to find someone there that won't suck as bad as what we had before Frank and won't cause him as much headache as Frank did.
We've debated the other points, so, this is where I stand. I'm not against putting the focus on football (as stated). I don't think Currie handled this specific hire well. He could have done better. But this makes sense given what we believe we know about Currie. We disagree in that I think Currie will put forth more effort and money into getting a good football coach. I agree with Trim (and others) that given Currie's reputation, it may be hard to do so. But I think he'll put more effort into it.
-
im pretty overjoyed that currie ran martin considering the entire team was set to transfer and martin burned through every recruiting tie he had in the region due to his complete jackassery.
martin was a loser who denied the inevitable and kept morale high with some diamond in the rough recruits and a fiery personality that eventually wore on everybody that surrounded him.
i bet his wife is nailing other dudes left and right.
-
Yeah, Frank is absolutely a boner.
-
It isn't about Weber vs. the other shitty hires making sense for John, it's about keeping Frank happy vs. whatever shitty hire Currie would make. Under ANY scenario, keeping Frank happy made the most financial sense.
Up until the point where Frank wasn't worth the hassle to Currie and vice versa. While I am of the belief that Currie will ultimately make his decisions based on financial reasoning, I'm not saying he'll never be prone to making them based on emotional reasons. He's not a robot. Again, I think he ultimately felt like Frank was replaceable, he could find someone for the same (or less) money that would produce roughly the same results and put roughly the same number of butts in the seats, and whoever that would be, they would be less of a headache to him than Frank was.
What was the hassle? He was wildly popular with fans and won more than expected 4 out of 5 seasons.
You're baiting me. You know exactly what hassle that I'm talking about. :nono:
Frank didn't fit Currie's mold for a coach. That wasn't exactly a secret. He wanted Frank to tone a lot of stuff down, and Frank didn't.
Again, I think Currie felt he could get Frank success levels (more or less) with less "Frank" for the same (or less) money.
which gets back to my original point that Currie is a dumbass loser who mumped up the basketball coaching situation.
I never denied that. I simply rationalized his position.
Currie has put the focus on football. He doesn't care as much about basketball and wants someone there that won't be a bother to him. The problem is that he gets bothered pretty easily. So, he's going to find someone there that won't suck as bad as what we had before Frank and won't cause him as much headache as Frank did.
We've debated the other points, so, this is where I stand. I'm not against putting the focus on football (as stated). I don't think Currie handled this specific hire well. He could have done better. But this makes sense given what we believe we know about Currie. We disagree in that I think Currie will put forth more effort and money into getting a good football coach. I agree with Trim (and others) that given Currie's reputation, it may be hard to do so. But I think he'll put more effort into it.
I don't think the effort (or allegedly unlimited budget) will make the football hire any better. Because of who KSU is and who Currie is.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fhispanic-politico%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F05%2Ftin_foil_hat.gif&hash=2e16519d1a1a34031438d9ca961847e4a8b3acf7)
-
How do you help lead something?
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fhispanic-politico%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F05%2Ftin_foil_hat.gif&hash=2e16519d1a1a34031438d9ca961847e4a8b3acf7)
what's your point? that currie helped with those searches? because i already said above that he did.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fhispanic-politico%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F05%2Ftin_foil_hat.gif&hash=2e16519d1a1a34031438d9ca961847e4a8b3acf7)
what's your point? that currie helped with those searches? because i already said above that he did.
Which was immediately qualified by saying
but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched.
I guess my point is that just because you loathe someone doesn't mean everything they've done in the history of ever has been loathesome? I mean it is OK to go ahead and coalesce to the fact that John Currie has done SOME good in the past, he may have even taken a risk or two (obviously on Pearl, and whatever role he played in Kiffen, he didn't kill it despite obvious red flags) on a hire...they weren't all white bread like Weber.
Still, we've gotten off topic, all I was curious about was what his relationship was w/ Fullmer? I mean, if nobody thinks he was high enough to be involved in the hire of Kiffen, is it realistic to think he had nothing to do with the firing of Fullmer? Is Fullmer worth talking about or would he LIOF, or would we even want him if he & Currie were tight?
-
One of my good friend's ex-girlfriend worked for him at UT. She did not care for at all and said he probably wouldn't be able to ever get a job at UT again.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fhispanic-politico%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F05%2Ftin_foil_hat.gif&hash=2e16519d1a1a34031438d9ca961847e4a8b3acf7)
what's your point? that currie helped with those searches? because i already said above that he did.
Which was immediately qualified by saying
but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched.
I guess my point is that just because you loathe someone doesn't mean everything they've done in the history of ever has been loathesome? I mean it is OK to go ahead and coalesce to the fact that John Currie has done SOME good in the past, he may have even taken a risk or two (obviously on Pearl, and whatever role he played in Kiffen, he didn't kill it despite obvious red flags) on a hire...they weren't all white bread like Weber.
Still, we've gotten off topic, all I was curious about was what his relationship was w/ Fullmer? I mean, if nobody thinks he was high enough to be involved in the hire of Kiffen, is it realistic to think he had nothing to do with the firing of Fullmer? Is Fullmer worth talking about or would he LIOF, or would we even want him if he & Currie were tight?
he did not take a risk on pearl because he was not the one that hired him. he also didn't kill those hires because he couldn't have, due again to the fact that he was not in charge. do you john currie was the AD at UT before he came here? he wasn't. also, i don't loathe john currie. not even close. also, i wish to god people would just shut up about him and god damn UT like it's some sort of pipeline to ksu or something. just stop. phil fullmer will never become the coach and kansas state. just stop it.
-
How could a guy that hired Kiffin possibly turn so bad and hire chicken nuggets?
It's rough ridin' baffling, isn't it?
My only explanation is that he honestly just doesn't give a crap about basketball...like, he's so SEC that he basically just hired who "they" said to hire and moved on.
This Kiffen selection has my attention. I was not aware Curried played that prominent of a role. Very impressed....
he didn't. i'm sure he was part of the search, but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched. him having something to do with the hiring of pearl is much more realistic.
currie at tennessee was more less a guy who oversaw the raising of funds as well as stadium renovations and building of a new basketball training facility. he's obviously pretty good at those things and super aggressive on the fund raising side even to the potential of being detrimental to the academic fund raising people, which i personally think is great.
getting along with talent (read important coaches) is something that he is apparently horrific at though and should cause concern for all involved. i mean, frank and bill are two of the best things to ever happen to kstate and he's run off one and is about to run off the other. allegedly.
From UTSports.com release announcing he was leaving to come to KSU
"In June of 2007, Currie also helped lead the search for the Vols' new baseball coach, Todd Raleigh, as well as the 2008 football search which brought Lane Kiffin to Knoxville."
I guess they could be in on the conspiracy to bring down KSU Athletics too though...tough to tell who to believe in these turbulant times
http://www.utsports.com/genrel/051809aaa.html
you do realize that john currie probably wrote that press release himself, right? i mean the last half of it is just a bunch people who worked at tennessee saying nice stuff about him. i mean jesus.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fhispanic-politico%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F05%2Ftin_foil_hat.gif&hash=2e16519d1a1a34031438d9ca961847e4a8b3acf7)
what's your point? that currie helped with those searches? because i already said above that he did.
Which was immediately qualified by saying
but saying he had any input whatsoever is pretty far fetched.
I guess my point is that just because you loathe someone doesn't mean everything they've done in the history of ever has been loathesome? I mean it is OK to go ahead and coalesce to the fact that John Currie has done SOME good in the past, he may have even taken a risk or two (obviously on Pearl, and whatever role he played in Kiffen, he didn't kill it despite obvious red flags) on a hire...they weren't all white bread like Weber.
Still, we've gotten off topic, all I was curious about was what his relationship was w/ Fullmer? I mean, if nobody thinks he was high enough to be involved in the hire of Kiffen, is it realistic to think he had nothing to do with the firing of Fullmer? Is Fullmer worth talking about or would he LIOF, or would we even want him if he & Currie were tight?
he did not take a risk on pearl because he was not the one that hired him. he also didn't kill those hires because he couldn't have, due again to the fact that he was not in charge. do you john currie was the AD at UT before he came here? he wasn't. also, i don't loathe john currie. not even close. also, i wish to god people would just shut up about him and god damn UT like it's some sort of pipeline to ksu or something. just stop. phil fullmer will never become the coach and kansas state. just stop it.
I realize he wasn't the guy that ultimately put the contract in front of Pearl or Kiffen @ UT.
"Currie managed the coaching search in March 2005 that resulted in the hiring of oscar Pearl,"
I don't view that as a bit part either. If he really did "Manage" it, or if he was just a part or it is semantics to me...he WAS CLEARLY part of a search that didn't look at Pearls resume and kick it out of the pile for past indiscretions!! Is it possible that there was an x man search committee that Currie was on, and he was jumping up & down at the end of the table, "Don't hire oscar Pearl!!! COMPLIANCE IS KING!!!!!!" and the committee laughed at him, & told him to shut up & sit in the corner while grown me do their business? I guess it is possible...I also assume that is similar to the scene that plays out through most posters minds when imagining said scenario @ KSU (hence the foil hats - which wasn't meant to be directed solely at you, neither were the 'loathe' comments). It simply isn't the picture I have.
As to the pipeline comments...that is a little out of left field, but again, I think it is rational to start where the person that will be making the hire is comfortable. If JC & PF were Skeet shooting buddies (for some reason I think Phil Fullmer would just love shooting Skeet) or something stupid, I think it is entirely possible that JC would reach out that way. I mean, he did win a NC and if memory serves PF ran a hell of a clean program, which brings my post full circle I believe. :sdeek:
-
I don't view that as a bit part either. If he really did "Manage" it, or if he was just a part or it is semantics to me...he WAS CLEARLY part of a search that didn't look at Pearls resume and kick it out of the pile for past indiscretions!!
Are you talking about the past indiscretions that Pearl would go on to commit at UT?
-
I don't view that as a bit part either. If he really did "Manage" it, or if he was just a part or it is semantics to me...he WAS CLEARLY part of a search that didn't look at Pearls resume and kick it out of the pile for past indiscretions!!
Are you talking about the past indiscretions that Pearl would go on to commit at UT?
Wasn't he damaged goods coming out of UWM? I seem to remember him being at the heart of some recruiting scandal...otherwise I was clearly making crap up to further my argument.
-
I don't view that as a bit part either. If he really did "Manage" it, or if he was just a part or it is semantics to me...he WAS CLEARLY part of a search that didn't look at Pearls resume and kick it out of the pile for past indiscretions!!
Are you talking about the past indiscretions that Pearl would go on to commit at UT?
Wasn't he damaged goods coming out of UWM? I seem to remember him being at the heart of some recruiting scandal...otherwise I was clearly making crap up to further my argument.
:lol:
-
:flush:
-
Too lazy to look back in the thread, but if Florida has another lack luster season, Muschamp could be on the hot seat in the coming seasons.
Would take.
-
Too lazy to look back in the thread, but if Florida has another lack luster season, Muschamp could be on the hot seat in the coming seasons.
Would take.
I wouldn't want a coach whose only achievement was losing at Florida.
-
Cas brought up a good point the other night that Gary Barnett hasn't done anything lately (other than being a pretty insensitive person)
-
Cas brought up a good point the other night that Gary Barnett hasn't done anything lately (other than being a pretty insensitive person)
He's been away too long, imo. We can do better.
-
Bobby Petrino apologized today. We should totally text him or something.