goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: Benja on October 28, 2012, 11:03:21 PM

Title: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Benja on October 28, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
For AD job. Turned them down.

http://clemson.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1428385
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Barry McCockner on October 28, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
Maybe this is our KITN for the year.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on October 28, 2012, 11:10:20 PM
Can't see the article, but anyway:

Normally Clemson would be perceived as a step up from us, but these days you don't leave a Big 12 school for anyone in the ACC besides FSU, UNC, and maybe Duke. Not surprised Clemson interviewed him though. Their fans have been bitching about the school being too straight-laced and not providing enough support to athletics recently so if that's true he'd fit the Clemson leadership's desired profile while likely boosting their ability to raise funds.

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on October 28, 2012, 11:18:26 PM
oh man.  a lot of people on here have egg on their face.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on October 28, 2012, 11:23:13 PM
oh man.  a lot of people on here have egg on their face.

tears, not egg.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on October 28, 2012, 11:29:35 PM
oh man.  a lot of people on here have egg on their face.

tears, not egg.

no, its egg, trust me
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on October 28, 2012, 11:46:47 PM
no, its egg, trust me

i've never cried eggs before, kim.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on October 29, 2012, 12:13:49 AM
no, its egg, trust me

i've never cried eggs before, kim.

lol
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: ednksu on October 29, 2012, 01:11:20 AM
no, its egg, trust me

i've never cried eggs before, kim.

lol
:lol:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Trim on October 29, 2012, 06:11:05 AM
Quote
-- Kansas State athletics director John Currie was prominently on Clemson's radar at one point, but we've been told he turned down the job in part because he signed an extension at Kansas State over the summer. We're not sure if Clemson made a second run at him and what became of it, if that indeed happened.

Jesus Christ, animal.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on October 29, 2012, 07:23:32 AM
maybe all the intel on currie looking to jump ship was incorrect?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2012, 07:49:49 AM
JFC! He actually wants to work w oscar.

I don't even...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 29, 2012, 08:51:39 AM
maybe all the intel on currie looking to jump ship was incorrect?

maybe 90% of the things we think we know here is incorrect
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: yoga-like_abana on October 29, 2012, 09:06:00 AM
maybe all the intel on currie looking to jump ship was incorrect?

maybe 90% of the things we think we know here is incorrect
what if the whole world was vice versa
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 29, 2012, 09:07:06 AM
it's not opposite day, y-l-a.  or is it?   :confused:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: wetwillie on October 29, 2012, 09:12:09 AM
Dnr the link, did the clemson bbs discuss dollar figure?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 29, 2012, 10:17:48 AM
JFC! He actually wants to work w oscar.

I don't even...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

What if he turns oscar into a total badass?
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2012, 12:25:05 PM
JFC! He actually wants to work w oscar.

I don't even...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

What if he turns oscar into a total badass?

Extend his contact to life w a $50mil buyout

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: wabash909 on October 29, 2012, 03:31:42 PM
Radakovich headed for Clemson

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2012/10/28/clemson-reportedly-interested-in-radakovich/ (http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2012/10/28/clemson-reportedly-interested-in-radakovich/)

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: wazucat on October 29, 2012, 04:49:13 PM
JFC! He actually wants to work w oscar.

I don't even...

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

What if he turns oscar into a total badass?



 :horrorsurprise:  Maybe he's gettin a little better every day.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Clevey 2 Times on October 29, 2012, 08:18:12 PM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Benja on October 29, 2012, 08:40:09 PM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 30, 2012, 12:30:27 AM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

pretty :dubious: take considering its on the basketball board
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on October 30, 2012, 09:55:54 AM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 09:58:59 AM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...

Take another letter grade for the Webber debacle
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: captaincrap on October 30, 2012, 10:13:48 AM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on October 30, 2012, 10:14:52 AM
I'd dock his grade much more for the oscar hire than I would the handling of confirmed crazy person frank martin
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: captaincrap on October 30, 2012, 10:20:03 AM
I'd dock his grade much more for the oscar hire than I would the handling of confirmed crazy person frank martin

I would improve his letter grade for the Martin situation. I would leave his grade unchanged or slightly worse for oscar, because I am personally undecided on how well it will work out.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 10:25:50 AM
I'd dock his grade much more for the oscar hire than I would the handling of confirmed crazy person frank martin

I would improve his letter grade for the Martin situation. I would leave his grade unchanged or slightly worse for oscar, because I am personally undecided on how well it will work out.

Sorry, can't improve from the A+ given by Belvis.  Of course there is always the :ck: situaish to consider.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 30, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
I'd dock his grade much more for the oscar hire than I would the handling of confirmed crazy person frank martin

I would improve his letter grade for the Martin situation. I would leave his grade unchanged or slightly worse for oscar, because I am personally undecided on how well it will work out.

Yeah because he's the only AD in the country that had to deal with a difficult coach.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 30, 2012, 10:29:30 AM
I'd dock his grade much more for the oscar hire than I would the handling of confirmed crazy person frank martin

I would improve his letter grade for the Martin situation. I would leave his grade unchanged or slightly worse for oscar, because I am personally undecided on how well it will work out.

Of course there is always the :ck: situaish to consider.

You mean Dr. Bosco mushing the athletic department?  Also how much points does he lose for his assume the worst always compliance department?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on October 30, 2012, 10:33:10 AM
andherewego.gif
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: captaincrap on October 30, 2012, 10:39:26 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 10:45:23 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread

Not your fault, it was going to happen regardless.  Could see it coming from the thread title.  Most of us appreciate your input anyway.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: PurpleSleezyE on October 30, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
Why would any dipshit think he would go to Clemson?  That would put him the same state with Martin.  He clearly stated that he doesn't want to be within 500 miles of that m' effer ever again!
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 30, 2012, 10:56:02 AM
CC's input is always appreciated.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on October 30, 2012, 10:57:15 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread

Not your fault, it was going to happen regardless.  Could see it coming from the thread title.  Most of us appreciate your input anyway.

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on October 30, 2012, 11:00:11 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread

Not your fault, it was going to happen regardless.  Could see it coming from the thread title.  Most of us appreciate your input anyway.

i absolutely love input from cc, but i'm not sure he really gave any in this thread. unless you are counting the facepalm emoticon he gave belvis, which i personally wouldn't. he would've had to have included the toilet flushing one and/or the finger wagging thing for me to count that post as input aka " the rd two emoticon rule".
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 11:02:54 AM
This was CC's input, rd: http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=24038.msg650234#msg650234
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on October 30, 2012, 11:05:36 AM
This was CC's input, rd: http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=24038.msg650234#msg650234

 :facepalm: :flush:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 11:06:36 AM
This was CC's input, rd: http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=24038.msg650234#msg650234

 :facepalm: :flush:

 :thumbs: :eye: :cheers:


 :gocho:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 30, 2012, 11:09:08 AM
i hated frank so john currie gets an A+ and a $5 gift certificate to Vanderbilt's Western Store in Wamego for how he handled the frank situ.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 30, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread

Not your fault, it was going to happen regardless.  Could see it coming from the thread title.  Most of us appreciate your input anyway.

i absolutely love input from cc, but i'm not sure he really gave any in this thread. unless you are counting the facepalm emoticon he gave belvis, which i personally wouldn't. he would've had to have included the toilet flushing one and/or the finger wagging thing for me to count that post as input aka " the rd two emoticon rule".

Yeah, I personally wasn't addressing what his recent posts held, but the fact that I appreciate his input in the past and going forward.  He has taken a lot of static since the jamar receipt was found and all the Frank/currie/oscar stuff.  I am not saying I agree with him, but I appreciate the info given where it is coming from and that he keeps coming back.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 30, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
CC is fantastic.

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 30, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
if someone said to me, "clams, describe frank martin" i would respond with one word, and one word only, "megalomaniac".  then i'd say, go cats.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 30, 2012, 11:23:22 AM
andherewego.gif

Yeah, sorry. My fault. Should have stayed out of it.

/thread

 dude :dunno: woof, nothing wrong with discourse
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: mancattanite on October 30, 2012, 11:32:14 AM
So they're paying Radakovich $750,000.

For the remainder of his contract, we are paying Currie an average of $512,500.

I know he also gets bonuses, but would he get ~$250,000? Or is it possible that he actually likes it here?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on October 30, 2012, 11:40:10 AM
So they're paying Radakovich $750,000.

For the remainder of his contract, we are paying Currie an average of $512,500.

I know he also gets bonuses, but would he get ~$250,000? Or is it possible that he actually likes it here?

word is he got an extension which I'm sure included a raise
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 30, 2012, 11:50:50 AM
if someone said to me, "clams, describe frank martin" i would respond with one word, and one word only, "megalomaniac".  then i'd say, go cats.

Common trait in good coaches at high levels.  Also makes for entertainment off the court/field.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: wabash909 on October 30, 2012, 12:00:06 PM
if someone said to me, "clams, describe frank martin" i would respond with one word, and one word only, "megalomaniac".  then i'd say, go cats.

Common trait in good coaches at high levels.  Also makes for entertainment off the court/field.

How can athletic directors be asked to manage megalomaniac coaches?  They answer is they can't.  Not part of the job.



Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 30, 2012, 12:03:27 PM
if someone said to me, "clams, describe frank martin" i would respond with one word, and one word only, "megalomaniac".  then i'd say, go cats.

Common trait in good coaches at high levels.  Also makes for entertainment off the court/field.

wrong.  you should look up the definition of megalomaniac and try again, "CNS Casey".
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 30, 2012, 12:06:28 PM
Quote
Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'

 :dunno:

"Clams"
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 30, 2012, 12:18:42 PM
frank personifies megalomaniac.  key on the word 'delusional' and then focus on the fact we, k-state, gave frank everything he has.

you can't say that bill self is delusional, or izzo is delusional, or others who have earned what they have and built it for themselves. 

nope.  frank was the benefactor of an alcoholic mentor who skipped town and left the school that put him back into the spotlight, in the lurch. 

i'll stop now because i don't want to spoil what's left of your own delusional ideas of who or what frank martin was at k-state or to k-state, but if you think we're so bad of a basketball place, that we have to put up with his crap, you have a very low opinion of your alma mater and you need to get professional help because you're sickening to ksu cats everywhere around the entire globe.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 30, 2012, 12:25:16 PM
Sounds like we need to find the next alcoholic that is willing to stay around for at least two years.  I mean, if Huggs can give us 4+ years of prosperity after he leaves simply from being here 1 yr, think what we could get from the next drinky mcdrinkerton if they stayed 3 yrs. 

Guys, we could have our next drunk set up an NC run by the next nobody assistant that was left with us falling into his lap.

Also, does it have to be a megalomaniac assistant who lucks into our job, or can it be any assistant since the alcoholic's remnant magic is so strong?

  :excited:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Rock Lobster on October 30, 2012, 12:38:53 PM
IMO Currie would've received an A++++++ like Ralphie in Christmas Story if he had hired Gottlieb. However we have all realized that was a daydream not unlike Ralphie. In reality Currie receives a C+ because he shot his eye out with the Weber hire.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Trim on October 30, 2012, 12:45:01 PM
F-
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: wazucat on October 30, 2012, 12:45:10 PM
IMO Currie would've received an A++++++ like Ralphie in Christmas Story if he had hired Gottlieb. However we have all realized that was a daydream not unlike Ralphie. In reality Currie receives a C+ because he shot his eye out with Weber.

Sorry to be out of the loop, but what have we/you all realized that made Gottlieb  a day dream. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on October 30, 2012, 12:47:49 PM
IMO Currie would've received an A++++++ like Ralphie in Christmas Story if he had hired Gottlieb. However we have all realized that was a daydream not unlike Ralphie. In reality Currie receives a C+ because he shot his eye out with Weber.

Sorry to be out of the loop, but what have we/you all realized that made Gottlieb  a day dream.

our AD sucking at making basketball hires was the first thing that made me realize it
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: puniraptor on October 30, 2012, 12:50:44 PM
IMO Currie would've received an A++++++ like Ralphie in Christmas Story if he had hired Gottlieb. However we have all realized that was a daydream not unlike Ralphie. In reality Currie receives a C+ because he shot his eye out with Weber.

Sorry to be out of the loop, but what have we/you all realized that made Gottlieb  a day dream.

I think the hope that currie would actually hire doug was the daydream.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 8manpick on October 30, 2012, 02:22:39 PM
Sounds like we need to find the next alcoholic that is willing to stay around for at least two years.  I mean, if Huggs can give us 4+ years of prosperity after he leaves simply from being here 1 yr, think what we could get from the next drinky mcdrinkerton if they stayed 3 yrs. 

Guys, we could have our next drunk set up an NC run by the next nobody assistant that was left with us falling into his lap.

Also, does it have to be a megalomaniac assistant who lucks into our job, or can it be any assistant since the alcoholic's remnant magic is so strong?

  :excited:

What is Larry Eu doing?!
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Benja on October 30, 2012, 02:54:58 PM
It sounds like Frank may have legitimately crazier/more trouble than most coaches.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: p1k3 on October 30, 2012, 05:20:19 PM
F-

This. Letter grade for the Frank issues (A to B) , two more letter grades for the Jamar witch hunt (B to D) , and one letter grade and a half for oscar (D to F-) .
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Barry McCockner on October 30, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
It seems that the longer this thread continues, the more informed, intelligent posters join in.   :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: mancattanite on October 30, 2012, 11:20:17 PM
So they're paying Radakovich $750,000.

For the remainder of his contract, we are paying Currie an average of $512,500.

I know he also gets bonuses, but would he get ~$250,000? Or is it possible that he actually likes it here?

word is he got an extension which I'm sure included a raise

My bad, that is from the extended contract:

http://www.k-state.edu/today/announcement.php?id=3892&category=news&referredBy=K-State%20Today%20Home
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: jtksu on October 30, 2012, 11:37:00 PM
I fuckin loved Frank but I'm of the opinion that recruiting was going downhill and our success with Frank was coming to an end.  I don't think oscar is going to do any better but I think pretty much everyone was getting tired of Frank whoring himself self out every offseason and demanding more money. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 31, 2012, 12:17:28 AM
I fuckin loved Frank but I'm of the opinion that recruiting was going downhill and our success with Frank was coming to an end.  I don't think oscar is going to do any better but I think pretty much everyone was getting tired of Frank whoring himself self out every offseason and demanding more money.

Robert Upshaw
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Cire on October 31, 2012, 07:06:20 AM
Clemson is not an ncaA or conference job
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: jmlynch1 on October 31, 2012, 09:29:11 AM
Bob Krause would have hired Gottlieb! :sdeek: Also, I saw him on the concourse last night. :sdeek:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2012, 09:53:41 AM
Oh yeah, Robert Upshaw . . . the 7 foot project whose massive lists of options were:  Fresno State and Fresno State.

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 31, 2012, 10:33:48 AM
Oh yeah, Robert Upshaw . . . the 7 foot project whose massive lists of options were:  Fresno State and Fresno State.



he's still a top 50 player, regardless of whether or not he signed on with his hometown team after frank bailed on him.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Technically, Upshaw never fully signed on with Frank.

It doesn't really count until every document is signed and the kid is on campus.   

No points


Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on October 31, 2012, 11:11:58 AM
Technically, Upshaw never fully signed on with Frank.

It doesn't really count until every document is signed and the kid is on campus.   

No points

yeah, my understanding is that when it isn't a legitimate signing, fans have a way of shutting that whole system down and their butts remain entirely undamaged.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 31, 2012, 11:14:27 AM
Oh yeah, Robert Upshaw . . . the 7 foot project whose massive lists of options were:  Fresno State and Fresno State.

 :bait:
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Blackcats on October 31, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...

Take another letter grade for the Webber debacle

Add a letter for building us a castle.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on October 31, 2012, 01:23:27 PM
Technically, Upshaw never fully signed on with Frank.

It doesn't really count until every document is signed and the kid is on campus.   

No points

yeah, my understanding is that when it isn't a legitimate signing, fans have a way of shutting that whole system down and their butts remain entirely undamaged.

Oh man...
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on October 31, 2012, 01:54:54 PM
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on October 31, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU. 

His recruiting was improving, without a doubt. But I think saying he was squarely behind KU, BU, and UT is a fair assessment, and a reasonable expectation for KSU. I don't think we were squarely behind ISU and MU, who is now obviously irrelevant. We might be well behind ISU now, but I don't think it was fair to say Hoiberg was outrecruiting Martin, mainly because there's just not enough info to go off of.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on October 31, 2012, 03:50:53 PM
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU.

Who was mad that we lost Cauley to UK?  I'm assuming it was someone who only posts on the basketball board from January to March.  His recruiting was improving.  He landed Upshaw but the players that really would have told the story were coming later and he left before he would have been given a more permanent judgment.  Tough to say how we would have viewed Frank losing Semi to Duke.  I think it certainly more forgivable that Weber lost him to Duke.  If the rumors we heard about Mo-Kan were true Frank's recruiting certainly would have been seen as a huge problem. 

Sure he had misses, Spradling & Moose is going to suck, who doesn't?  Because he would have had Angel & Upshaw to build a program around I don't know how anyone could have credibly been upset with recruiting the day he left.   
Title: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on October 31, 2012, 04:10:25 PM
I was pretty upset when we lost Willie. He was the guy we recruited hardest, in our backyard playing for our supposed besty AAU and our assistant coach coached his dad at one point. But, I mean, at least it was Cal.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on October 31, 2012, 05:15:27 PM
as it relates to recruiting, frank martin is/was nails on the juco front.  the guy just seemed to have a knack for finding those diamonds in the juco rough.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: ksupamplemousse on November 01, 2012, 01:57:26 AM
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...

Take another letter grade for the Webber debacle

Meh, give him a B-, who the eff was he supposed to get? The best coach we've had since Jimmy Carter left us because he didn't get along with the AD, pretty much have to go hire a pushover at that point.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 10:35:40 AM
I was excited about Angel and Upshaw.  But, the reality is that Angel and Upshaw were Frank Martin crown jewel recruits.  Upshaw, by Frank's own admission was a huge project that would take a few years to develop.  And Angel might be a 2nd or 3rd team conference PG by the time he's a senior. 

I didn't see Frank's recruiting improving.  Assuming one gives Frank credit for McGruder, Russell, Judge, Pullen, it's near impossible to argue that he was improving upon his early recruiting success.

The fact is that Huggins gave us 5* players.  Frank and Te followed that wave with Judge and some 4* players.  Te left and Frank was bringing in quality 3* players - swinging and missing on all in-state talent (perry ellis, willy cauley, semi ojeleye).  I'm not gonna slam him for losing players to Duke, KU, Kentucky, etc., but it's still dissapointing when they're in-state guys.

Mo-Kan sources were reporting that Frank was a nightmare to deal with on the recruiting trail. 

Maybe Frank had some Elite talent in the pipeline.  I don't think so.  Frank did a great job with the talent he produced.  But, I think back to that Baylor game in the BigXII tournament when Baylor mopped the floor with us and I remember thinking... we just don't have the athletes. 

Will Weber do a better job recruiting?  I have my doubts.  But I'm willing to call a spade a spade.  Martin was a pretty average recruiter without Te and I didn't see it getting better by leaps and bounds.

What I give Frank credit for was realizing that he had gritty 3* guys and molding them into a JYC team of brawlers that out defended and out rebounded teams into winning conference records every year.  It was ugly as crap to watch and, oftentimes, not very entertaining.  But, the results were there.  What scares me is that Weber won't be able to recruit the type of talent to Manhattan that will be necessary to pull off a more "pure" style of basketball, i.e. better ball handlers, shooters, passers.  Who knows, maybe we'll play the same JYC style that Martin reverted to.  I doubt it.               
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Frank has commitments from two 4 star players at South Carolina. :dunno:

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2012, 10:46:17 AM
Will Cauley was never going to K-State even befor Cal went all in, he wasn't going to deal with Frank.

It's highly debateable if Upshaw could have even gotten into school and that's saying something and I agree that I don't hold out much hope on Weber recruiting any better.   



Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on November 01, 2012, 10:51:40 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 10:54:54 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 10:58:55 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

oscar apologists out there, you've been warned.  we are on to you.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: mocat on November 01, 2012, 11:00:11 AM
I really wanted at least one of the following:

Perry / Semi / Willie
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 11:02:46 AM
I really wanted at least one of the following:

Perry / Semi / Willie

we all did. and if it wasn't impossible to recruit to ksu, we would have landed one or more of them.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 11:10:35 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Yep. Just watch, though.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 11:13:27 AM

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.


what?
Title: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 11:14:40 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Yep. Just watch, though.

prolly right
Title: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on November 01, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Well be said that 'te was dirty and that oscar will not play that game, does it the right wat, etc.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 11:18:38 AM
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist. 
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 11:19:17 AM

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.


what?

What you're saying is very reasonable.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 11:20:35 AM
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist.

being a non-extremist on the issue really leaves you with few peers at goEMAW
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 11:21:10 AM
Frank has commitments from two 4 star players at South Carolina. :dunno:

i'm guessing frank had offered them while he was still at k-state (to k-state), right? 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: SleepFighter on November 01, 2012, 11:21:54 AM
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist.

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 11:25:30 AM
Frank has commitments from two 4 star players at South Carolina. :dunno:

i'm guessing frank had offered them while he was still at k-state, right?

Frank is damaged goods.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 11:31:11 AM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Saulbadguy on November 01, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 11:36:56 AM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:

But don't you feel like we've thrown it all away?
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: catzacker on November 01, 2012, 11:47:56 AM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:

But don't you feel like we've thrown it all away?

yes.  not all away right now.  I think it will eventually all go away, but slowly.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on November 01, 2012, 11:52:07 AM
we never would've hired huggins in the first place if bill was going to bcs games at the time. goodbye basketball. maybe some day we'll meet again.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Saulbadguy on November 01, 2012, 02:37:08 PM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:

But don't you feel like we've thrown it all away?
No, I certainly don't. I don't think the expectation to win will go down dramatically.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on November 01, 2012, 02:40:24 PM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:

But don't you feel like we've thrown it all away?
No, I certainly don't. I don't think the expectation to win will go down dramatically.

This season, or at anytime in oscar's time here?  I agree with this season, but I think a large part of our base will be just fine if he wins less than Frank did, eventually.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on November 01, 2012, 02:41:56 PM
Saul, you're underestimating the ability of tucks to accept mediocrity.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Saulbadguy on November 01, 2012, 02:46:21 PM
Saul, you're underestimating the ability of tucks to accept mediocrity.
You're underestimating the ability of goEMAW to be a catalyst of change.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on November 01, 2012, 02:48:27 PM
I hope you're right.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 02:48:58 PM
Saul, you're underestimating the ability of tucks to accept mediocrity.
You're underestimating the ability of goEMAW to be a catalyst of change.

maybe. The Huggins hiring effort went amazingly well, but the oscar hire was spectacularly horrible.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on November 01, 2012, 02:51:43 PM
Saul, you're underestimating the ability of tucks to accept mediocrity.
You're underestimating the ability of goEMAW to be a catalyst of change.

maybe. The Huggins hiring effort went amazingly well, but the oscar hire was spectacularly horrible.

Yeah. Huggins and the plane banner were great. But Currie doesn't give a flying eff about what we think, nor will he ever. The challenge in affecting change in basketball is now much higher.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on November 01, 2012, 02:59:46 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 03:06:57 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

I don't think we'll have that after Angel leaves. And then we'll fire oscar and go the conventional route - hire some slob from Oral Roberts or SW Missouri State that had a nice run in the tournament who flounders, then we will rinse and repeat.

One of the nice things about the Huggins timing was the sense of desperation surrounding the program. Without that desperation, people are OK hiring Johnny Mid-Major over and over and over.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: mocat on November 01, 2012, 03:07:43 PM
There was a moment, fleeting though it may have been, where I truly honest to God thought we were going to hire Doug Gottlieb. The moment passed as quickly as it came, however, and when the dust settled, the silhouette of a gap-toothed, chicken nuggets-loving, proven loser from Illinois emerged in Manhattan, KS. The moment is gone.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 03:08:02 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

98% of this board (ksufans) were those people not long ago.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: catzacker on November 01, 2012, 03:16:22 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

98% of this board (ksufans) were those people not long ago.

Clams, as contrarian as you’re trying to be, you can’t possibly really believe this.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 03:20:57 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

Maybe every single one of my friends is an outlier, then, because I don't associate with a single KSUer who is fine being a consistent bubble team.  And I associate with a lot of KSUers.

Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 03:23:19 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

98% of this board (ksufans) were those people not long ago.

Clams, as contrarian as you’re trying to be, you can’t possibly really believe this.

i'm not trying to be anything.  that post is almost word for word exactly what we hoped for in the wooly/late snyder years.  you're either lying to yourself if you don't think you felt the same way or you have a very bad memory of the state of our athletic dept.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 03:23:47 PM
I can't decide which is more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) - being absolutely convinced that oscar Weber will be neckbrace2.0 or seriously wanting doug gottlieb to be our next coach.

Admittedly, I too had a fleeting thought that Gottlieb would be a great hire.  Then I gave it some thought. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 03:24:56 PM
I can't decide which is more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) - being absolutely convinced that oscar Weber will be neckbrace2.0 or seriously wanting doug gottlieb to be our next coach.

damnit
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on November 01, 2012, 03:27:17 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

Maybe every single one of my friends is an outlier, then, because I don't associate with a single KSUer who is fine being a consistent bubble team.  And I associate with a lot of KSUers.


i believe you when you say that your friends don't think that they'll be fine with it. the problem is that humans as a whole are very, very bad at predicting what will and what won't bring them future happiness, belvis.


the below link gives just one reason why, but there are many more...

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-neglect-who-they-really-are-when-predicting-their-own-future-happiness.html
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Trim on November 01, 2012, 03:27:53 PM
98% of our fan base is perfectly fine having a consistent bubble team as long as we do things the right way and are going to bowl games. this is a fact.

Maybe every single one of my friends is an outlier, then, because I don't associate with a single KSUer who is fine being a consistent bubble team.  And I associate with a lot of KSUers.

We're outliers.

EDIT: Just read your Gottlieb thing.  You're an outlier among outliers.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: mocat on November 01, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
I can't decide which is more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) - being absolutely convinced that oscar Weber will be neckbrace2.0 or seriously wanting doug gottlieb to be our next coach.

Admittedly, I too had a fleeting thought that Gottlieb would be a great hire.  Then I gave it some thought.

well Gottlieb would have been high risk/high reward. Much like our last 2 hires, which turned out fantastic. Hiring Weber is high risk/low reward. Unless you think dwindling in mediocrity is not a risk. In which case hiring Weber is low risk/low reward.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 03:35:16 PM

i believe you when you say that your friends don't think that they'll be fine with it. the problem is that humans as a whole are very, very bad at predicting what will and what won't bring them future happiness, belvis.


I suppose.  I just think that now that this fanbase has had a taste of success in basketball, it's going to be much harder in 2013 to accept failure than it was in the 90s.  Plenty of fanbases are passionate about both football and basketball and I think that 2013 KStaters fall into this class.  And, though there is disagreement about whether Currie/Shulz prioritize basketball, I do think that the BBTF is 1 giant indication that these guys care a LOT more than Weiser/Wefald did.

   
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Skipper44 on November 01, 2012, 03:36:41 PM
everyone on Ksufans wanted a bubble team, it had been a decade since we had enjoyed any kind of drama in March.

While KSU has become a football school (like almost every other BCS school), there is still significantly more enthusiasm for basketball in Manhattan than in every SEC school(save UK), most of the Pac 12 and all the Texas schools. 

The money and commitment KSU can make to hoops is significant and we deserve better than a retread choosing between us and C of C.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 03:41:29 PM

well Gottlieb would have been high risk/high reward. Much like our last 2 hires, which turned out fantastic. Hiring Weber is high risk/low reward. Unless you think dwindling in mediocrity is not a risk. In which case hiring Weber is low risk/low reward.


Yeah, Gottlieb is not anything like our last 2 hires.  For starters, Huggins was a professional basketball coach.  Frank was attached to Te who delivered Beasley. 

Weber may fail.  Gottlieb may have failed.  Difference is that Weber is a basketball coach and Gottlieb is a journalist who played basketball in college.   

   
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 03:42:15 PM
I don't think Weber was a high risk hire. I think he was a pretty guaranteed comodity.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: CNS on November 01, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
The expectations of fans from the Wooly days are irrelevant.  We tasted success for long enough to reasonably expect that given the correct management, it could be sustained at that level. 



Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: pissclams on November 01, 2012, 03:48:18 PM
The expectations of fans from the Wooly days are irrelevant.  We tasted success for long enough to reasonably expect that given the correct management, it could be sustained at that level. 





those expectations are relevant because they bring perspective to the discussion.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Skipper44 on November 01, 2012, 03:49:58 PM
I don't think Weber was a high risk hire. I think he was a pretty guaranteed comodity.
I disagree - he completely lost his team last year.  I mean, I guess Dave Bliss did a worse job
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: 0.42 on November 01, 2012, 04:26:56 PM
At least we didn't hire Doug Davalos.
Title: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 05:17:12 PM
I don't think Weber was a high risk hire. I think he was a pretty guaranteed comodity.
I disagree - he completely lost his team last year.  I mean, I guess Dave Bliss did a worse job

I don't think you understand what I'm saying
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 06:22:26 PM
If you're honest with yourself, you know what Weber will provide, as he had 9 years in a very similar situation at a similar institution and ended in him getting fired. So you can call that high-risk, low-risk, no-risk, whatever. You can even throw in a neckbrace strawman if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than enough evidence to accurately predict that Weber will fail.

I fully admit that Gottlieb could have crashed and burned, but I think the crash could have come quickly enough that people would still care. He also had a fantastic roster that likely would have done quite well and helped trick people that think basketball isn't 90% recruiting into believing that he could "coach".

The long, slow, gradual diminishing expectations that Weber provide is a much sadder death and will be more difficult to recover from than the worst case scenario under Gottlieb IMO.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on November 01, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
If you're honest with yourself, you know what Weber will provide, as he had 9 years in a very similar situation at a similar institution and ended in him getting fired. So you can call that high-risk, low-risk, no-risk, whatever. You can even throw in a neckbrace strawman if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than enough evidence to accurately predict that Weber will fail.

I fully admit that Gottlieb could have crashed and burned, but I think the crash could have come quickly enough that people would still care. He also had a fantastic roster that likely would have done quite well and helped trick people that think basketball isn't 90% recruiting into believing that he could "coach".

The long, slow, gradual diminishing expectations that Weber provide is a much sadder death and will be more difficult to recover from than the worst case scenario under Gottlieb IMO.

i am honest with myself, and i don't know.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 07:55:15 PM
If you're honest with yourself, you know what Weber will provide, as he had 9 years in a very similar situation at a similar institution and ended in him getting fired. So you can call that high-risk, low-risk, no-risk, whatever. You can even throw in a neckbrace strawman if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than enough evidence to accurately predict that Weber will fail.

I fully admit that Gottlieb could have crashed and burned, but I think the crash could have come quickly enough that people would still care. He also had a fantastic roster that likely would have done quite well and helped trick people that think basketball isn't 90% recruiting into believing that he could "coach".

The long, slow, gradual diminishing expectations that Weber provide is a much sadder death and will be more difficult to recover from than the worst case scenario under Gottlieb IMO.

i am honest with myself, and i don't know.

you are such a rough ridin' liar
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: steve dave on November 01, 2012, 07:55:30 PM
If you're honest with yourself, you know what Weber will provide, as he had 9 years in a very similar situation at a similar institution and ended in him getting fired. So you can call that high-risk, low-risk, no-risk, whatever. You can even throw in a neckbrace strawman if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that there is more than enough evidence to accurately predict that Weber will fail.

I fully admit that Gottlieb could have crashed and burned, but I think the crash could have come quickly enough that people would still care. He also had a fantastic roster that likely would have done quite well and helped trick people that think basketball isn't 90% recruiting into believing that he could "coach".

The long, slow, gradual diminishing expectations that Weber provide is a much sadder death and will be more difficult to recover from than the worst case scenario under Gottlieb IMO.

yep, pretty much the most guaranteed commodity you can get in college basketball
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 08:21:51 PM
With Lowery at SIU, they had some great mid major teams.  At Illinois, with another guys players, they were really good.  With his own players, they were good some years and trash other years.  At the end, he wasn't consistent enough and got fired.  Recruiting was pretty good, in terms of * ratings.  Maybe he didn't have the right mix.  Maybe his players didn't play hard b/c he's a garbage, gap toothed coach.  Maybe he was unlucky.  Who rough ridin' knows? 

All I know is he's got a long history in the coaching world.  He's experienced a lot.  And he's had stretches with great success and dismal failure. 

Since I don't have a choice in the matter, I'm going to hope he has a stretch of success here. Is it possible?  Yes, quite possible.  Is it guaranteed?  Hell no. 
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Barry McCockner on November 01, 2012, 08:43:01 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 08:46:49 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.

Oh, bullshit. You can also see Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida. We're just adding cars to the excuse train if we blame football success for ANYTHING bad that happens to basketball.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 08:53:21 PM
Jesuscrist dude, why so angry?

Just saying that being good inone sport foster complacency in other sports.  Happened to us in the 90s. Its happened at KU in football.  It happens. 

Not an excuse. Just reality.  Hope our fan base doesn't lose its edge and fall victim to this. We've got the resources, facilities and fan support to be elite in both sports.  No excuses.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on November 01, 2012, 08:58:07 PM
It's highly debateable if Upshaw could have even gotten into school.

name one person in the history of the world that couldn't get into kstate but could get into another 4 yr university.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Belvis Noland on November 01, 2012, 09:00:19 PM
Btw, just saw u cited Oklahoma?  That's got to be the most apathetic bball fan base in the Conference.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on November 01, 2012, 09:05:28 PM
Btw, just saw u cited Oklahoma?  That's got to be the most apathetic bball fan base in the Conference.

but it didn't stop them from being good in bball for a long period of time.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Dugout DickStone on November 01, 2012, 09:17:35 PM
We've come a long way.  :gocho:

But don't you feel like we've thrown it all away?
No, I certainly don't. I don't think the expectation to win will go down dramatically.

This season, or at anytime in oscar's time here?  I agree with this season, but I think a large part of our base will be just fine if he wins less than Frank did, eventually.

They won't have a choice.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on November 01, 2012, 09:28:02 PM
It's highly debateable if Upshaw could have even gotten into school.

name one person in the history of the world that couldn't get into kstate but could get into another 4 yr university.

robert upshaw maybe?
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 09:31:22 PM
Correlation does not equal causation.

Dana Altman and Tom Asbury were responsible for our shitty basketball, not LHC Bill Snyder, just like Terry Allen was responsible for shitty KU football.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on November 01, 2012, 09:31:51 PM
robert upshaw maybe?

completely unfair, kim.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: sys on November 01, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
Correlation does not equal causation.

Dana Altman and Tom Asbury were responsible for our shitty basketball, not LHC Bill Snyder.

don't be ridiculous.  he killed it once, and came back to kill it again.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: Barry McCockner on November 01, 2012, 09:33:57 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.

Oh, bullshit. You can also see Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida. We're just adding cars to the excuse train if we blame football success for ANYTHING bad that happens to basketball.

Hold on.  You are totally misreading the post if you are taking it is football being an excuse for the impending basketball failure.  The point is that as football rises, it distracts 99% of our fanbase from the fact that Currie crap on the basketball program by hiring Weber.  Make no mistake, the blame will be squarely on Currie & Weber.   The problem is, as long as football is kicking ass, most people will shrug off the dumpster fire.
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on November 01, 2012, 10:01:47 PM

well Gottlieb would have been high risk/high reward. Much like our last 2 hires, which turned out fantastic. Hiring Weber is high risk/low reward. Unless you think dwindling in mediocrity is not a risk. In which case hiring Weber is low risk/low reward.


Yeah, Gottlieb is not anything like our last 2 hires.  For starters, Huggins was a professional basketball coach.  Frank was attached to Te who delivered Beasley. 

Weber may fail.  Gottlieb may have failed.  Difference is that Weber is a basketball coach and Gottlieb is a journalist who played basketball in college.   

 

Jesus Christ man, its coaching basketball not open heart surgery
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: MakeItRain on November 01, 2012, 10:05:04 PM
Will Cauley was never going to K-State even befor Cal went all in, he wasn't going to deal with Frank.

It's highly debateable if Upshaw could have even gotten into school and that's saying something

 :blah:  I don't know how you have time for anything else with the constant stream of bullshit emanating from all of your holes.  You're dangerously close to pathological liar
Title: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on November 01, 2012, 10:05:23 PM

well Gottlieb would have been high risk/high reward. Much like our last 2 hires, which turned out fantastic. Hiring Weber is high risk/low reward. Unless you think dwindling in mediocrity is not a risk. In which case hiring Weber is low risk/low reward.


Yeah, Gottlieb is not anything like our last 2 hires.  For starters, Huggins was a professional basketball coach.  Frank was attached to Te who delivered Beasley. 

Weber may fail.  Gottlieb may have failed.  Difference is that Weber is a basketball coach and Gottlieb is a journalist who played basketball in college.   

 

Jesus Christ man, its coaching basketball not open heart surgery

D1 basketball coaches (in bcs conferences) make like 4 times more money than heart surgeons, so it must be pretty hard.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 10:35:27 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.

Oh, bullshit. You can also see Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida. We're just adding cars to the excuse train if we blame football success for ANYTHING bad that happens to basketball.

Hold on.  You are totally misreading the post if you are taking it is football being an excuse for the impending basketball failure.  The point is that as football rises, it distracts 99% of our fanbase from the fact that Currie crap on the basketball program by hiring Weber.  Make no mistake, the blame will be squarely on Currie & Weber.   The problem is, as long as football is kicking ass, most people will shrug off the dumpster fire.

That makes sense,  I guess. I don't think Frank would have kept his job if he had a couple nit's, though, regardless of football. Weber will be okay for at least four years, at least.
Title: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 10:36:40 PM

well Gottlieb would have been high risk/high reward. Much like our last 2 hires, which turned out fantastic. Hiring Weber is high risk/low reward. Unless you think dwindling in mediocrity is not a risk. In which case hiring Weber is low risk/low reward.


Yeah, Gottlieb is not anything like our last 2 hires.  For starters, Huggins was a professional basketball coach.  Frank was attached to Te who delivered Beasley. 

Weber may fail.  Gottlieb may have failed.  Difference is that Weber is a basketball coach and Gottlieb is a journalist who played basketball in college.   

 

Jesus Christ man, its coaching basketball not open heart surgery

D1 basketball coaches (in bcs conferences) make like 4 times more money than heart surgeons, so it must be pretty hard.

You're right, it's hard in the same way winning the lottery is hard.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: kim carnes on November 01, 2012, 10:36:52 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.

Oh, bullshit. You can also see Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida. We're just adding cars to the excuse train if we blame football success for ANYTHING bad that happens to basketball.

Hold on.  You are totally misreading the post if you are taking it is football being an excuse for the impending basketball failure.  The point is that as football rises, it distracts 99% of our fanbase from the fact that Currie crap on the basketball program by hiring Weber.  Make no mistake, the blame will be squarely on Currie & Weber.   The problem is, as long as football is kicking ass, most people will shrug off the dumpster fire.

That makes sense,  I guess. I don't think Frank would have kept his job if he had a couple nit's, though, regardless of football. Weber will be okay for at least four years, at least.

how many years should he get michigancat?
Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
Post by: michigancat on November 01, 2012, 10:43:08 PM

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.


Well, like I said, I'll never make the argument.  Never have.  Days of Timmy Weiser are over.  All things KSTATEO seem to be diminishing.  In all seriousness, this is as close to a golden era as fans have had in K-State sports history.  I hope that with the NCAA bball and football success and the massive facility upgrades, and with the night and day transformation of the general fan experience, fans will fiercly resist devolving into another era of Wooly mediocrity. 

I hope I'm not wrong.  Ironically, the worst thing that could happen is sustained football success.  See Nebraska.

This.

Oh, bullshit. You can also see Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, and Florida. We're just adding cars to the excuse train if we blame football success for ANYTHING bad that happens to basketball.

Hold on.  You are totally misreading the post if you are taking it is football being an excuse for the impending basketball failure.  The point is that as football rises, it distracts 99% of our fanbase from the fact that Currie crap on the basketball program by hiring Weber.  Make no mistake, the blame will be squarely on Currie & Weber.   The problem is, as long as football is kicking ass, most people will shrug off the dumpster fire.

That makes sense,  I guess. I don't think Frank would have kept his job if he had a couple nit's, though, regardless of football. Weber will be okay for at least four years, at least.

how many years should he get michigancat?

Zero.