goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on October 28, 2013, 02:36:54 PM
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
-
I guess I don't see why everyone is pissed about this pickup. I watched some jr and sr film, and he looks like a good player. He's not very fast for sure, but he seems to be a long strider that knows how use his length to get position on the way to the hoop. Shot from outside looks smooth, and it also looks repeatable, doesn't seem to be any glaring mechanics flaws. He looks like a kid with pretty high bball IQ that has a good sense for where the ball is going in the offense, and where it will come off the rim on missed shots. My only real concern is on defense, his speed and quickness look to be below average for a high major kid. I think we'll probably pack a few pounds on him and play him at the wing. Overall, I'm totally fine with oscar taking a flyer on this kid, I think he could be an actual DITR, not one those "her her, oscar picked up another DITR" kind of guys.
-
I'm interested to see what 'clams' dossier on this young gun says. I love 'clams' hoops dossiers. For my money there just aren't better dossiers out there.
-
GPC has 2 pages about how this is an ok pickup because he's just gonna play behind Edwards, Foster, and our other young studs anyway. I mean, I guess I see that point about depth, and at least he appears to be a competent shooter. But we went from targeting Javon Bess (who was already not a first option) to signing a kid who is seen as MAC level or below in a week. :dunno: Just not a lot of positive spin left for oscar's recruiting.
I don't think he was the replacement for Bess. I think he was the next guy on the list after Mason.
I think the Melvin kid is the next on the list after Bess.
It seems like we were targeting a big, a stretch four, and a shooter in this class. He seems to be the shooter, and Hurt is the big. I'm guessing Melvin is the four.
On a side note, I'm assuming that we'll still pursue a couple of kids to potentially replace Jack Krap and potentially Nigel Johnson at the end of the year should we oscar them.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
I would say needs a Dalonte but Weber had one in Jerrance Howard and still failed.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
No Rodney McGruder?
Sorry, misread your post as saying that Weber won without Bill, Mike, or Rodney. Weber is good enough to win with a ton of talent. So is every other coach. He's not good enough to attract that top level talent, though, and that is the problem.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
No Rodney McGruder?
Sorry, misread your post as saying that Weber won without Bill, Mike, or Rodney. Weber is good enough to win with a ton of talent. So is every other coach. He's not good enough to attract that top level talent, though, and that is the problem.
Scott Drew says hi
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
No Rodney McGruder?
Sorry, misread your post as saying that Weber won without Bill, Mike, or Rodney. Weber is good enough to win with a ton of talent. So is every other coach. He's not good enough to attract that top level talent, though, and that is the problem.
Scott Drew says hi
Scott Drew is a proven, consistent winner.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
Very possible, he isn't IMO. Where would you put him? I used this list and I came up with 44 coaches that I would rather have, and believe me I felt I was being fair, if I had to think twice I didn't count them. Brad Underwood is one of my 44.
Cameron Dollar is now a D1 head coach!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_coaches
Scott Drew says hi
You're aware he has 2 elite 8s in 11 years right?
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
All 3 of those championships were won by kids he didn't recruit.
So.
No Dalonte Hill/Bob Huggins, no Bill Walker, Mike Beasley or Rodney McGruder.
No Rodney McGruder?
Sorry, misread your post as saying that Weber won without Bill, Mike, or Rodney. Weber is good enough to win with a ton of talent. So is every other coach. He's not good enough to attract that top level talent, though, and that is the problem.
Scott Drew says hi
Scott Drew is a proven, consistent winner.
He certainly wouldn't be my first choice, but I would take Drew at KSU.
-
Well well well, looks like we got ourselves here a good ole' fashion how-shitty-a-coach-is-Scott-Drew-off...
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
Very possible, he isn't IMO. Where would you put him? I used this list and I came up with 44 coaches that I would rather have, and believe me I felt I was being fair, if I had to think twice I didn't count them. Brad Underwood is one of my 44.
Cameron Dollar is now a D1 head coach!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_coaches
Scott Drew says hi
You're aware he has 2 elite 8s in 11 years right?
That's fantastic MIR, you've got your own list. :thumbsup:
-
Not really commenting on his ability as a coach.
However, he gets huge talent and play a style that can be pretty entertaining.
Also, the BBs'n around his recruiting would be dreamy.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
Very possible, he isn't IMO. Where would you put him? I used this list and I came up with 44 coaches that I would rather have, and believe me I felt I was being fair, if I had to think twice I didn't count them. Brad Underwood is one of my 44.
Cameron Dollar is now a D1 head coach!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_coaches
Scott Drew says hi
You're aware he has 2 elite 8s in 11 years right?
That's fantastic MIR, you've got your own list. :thumbsup:
Dax, can't you just discuss the topic without the bullshit? Are you 7 years old? I said Weber isn't a top 40 coach, you challenged me, I responded, you responded with a non-answer. I don't know man, when adults are having a conversation it usually goes something like this
Adult 1 "I think snickers are the best candy"
Adult 2 "Nah not really"
Adult 1 "I really can't think of a candy I like better"
Adult 2 "Well I like, 3 Musketeers, Twix, and Reece's Peanut Butter Cups more"
If you don't have a contribution to the objection that YOU raised, then just shut the eff up.
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
Very possible, he isn't IMO. Where would you put him? I used this list and I came up with 44 coaches that I would rather have, and believe me I felt I was being fair, if I had to think twice I didn't count them. Brad Underwood is one of my 44.
Cameron Dollar is now a D1 head coach!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_coaches
Scott Drew says hi
You're aware he has 2 elite 8s in 11 years right?
That's fantastic MIR, you've got your own list. :thumbsup:
Dax, can't you just discuss the topic without the bullshit? Are you 7 years old? I said Weber isn't a top 40 coach, you challenged me, I responded, you responded with a non-answer. I don't know man, when adults are having a conversation it usually goes something like this
Adult 1 "I think snickers are the best candy"
Adult 2 "Nah not really"
Adult 1 "I really can't think of a candy I like better"
Adult 2 "Well I like, 3 Musketeers, Twix, and Reece's Peanut Butter Cups more"
If you don't have a contribution to the objection that YOU raised, then just shut the eff up.
Anyone can look at a list and spew forth that they see 40 some odd guys on there they think are better than the current coach.
Who are these 40 some guys better than Weber?
I am not the least bit surprised that you think Underwood would be better, because the too cool for schoolers on this board will carry the water for anyone associated with Frank Martin's slightly above mediocre stint as K-State's head coach until the river runs dry . . . and hey, I like Brad, I remember watching chubby Brad Underwood shoot from way out when K-State was getting blown out at the end of the Jack Hartman era. Plus, who can forget Brad bailing out the clueless Frank Martin down the stretch during Frank's tenure at K-State.
-
Who are these 40 some guys better than Weber?
Here's 50.
http://network.yardbarker.com/college_basketball/article_external/college_basketball_ranking_the_top_50_coaches_for_2013_14/14558428
-
Who are these 40 some guys better than Weber?
Here's 50.
http://network.yardbarker.com/college_basketball/article_external/college_basketball_ranking_the_top_50_coaches_for_2013_14/14558428
Kevin Stallings? Highly Debateable
Leonard Hamilton? Please
Tad Boyle? Based on what exactly? One decent NCAA tourney run?
Fran McCaffery? Are you serious here?
Plus at least 5 more.
-
Who are these 40 some guys better than Weber?
Here's 50.
http://network.yardbarker.com/college_basketball/article_external/college_basketball_ranking_the_top_50_coaches_for_2013_14/14558428
Kevin Stallings? Highly Debateable
Leonard Hamilton? Please
Tad Boyle? Based on what exactly? One decent NCAA tourney run?
Fran McCaffery? Are you serious here?
Plus at least 5 more.
Well, that still leaves 41 coaches better than Weber.
-
Jaime Dixon: Faltering
Mike Montgomery: Keep on hangin on I guess
Tony Bennett: A sub .500 record in the very mediocre ACC gets you on the list?
Immediately disqualified because they're at small schools that play in non power conferences:
Bob McKillop
Rick Byrd
Randy Bennet
Other very debateables:
Lorenzo Romar
Steve Lavin
-
I have a hard time believing any of his recruits are good because I can't for the life of me understand why someone would go play basketball for oscar Weber when there are any other decent options.
This is where the "too cool for schoolers" lose all matter of objectivity. 4 Conference titles in 3 different conferences, 2 National Coach of the Year trophies and 3 conference coach of the year trophies, and a Final Four trophy.
Do you honestly think that stuff matters to recruits? The recruits that do look at those things also know that many of those accolades were accumulated when they were in elementary school and that he isn't considered a top 40 coach today.
How do you win a major conference basketball co-championship in the last year, the third major conference basketball championship in the last decade and then supposedly not breath on a Top 40 coaching position? Impossible.
Very possible, he isn't IMO. Where would you put him? I used this list and I came up with 44 coaches that I would rather have, and believe me I felt I was being fair, if I had to think twice I didn't count them. Brad Underwood is one of my 44.
Cameron Dollar is now a D1 head coach!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_coaches
Scott Drew says hi
You're aware he has 2 elite 8s in 11 years right?
That's fantastic MIR, you've got your own list. :thumbsup:
Dax, can't you just discuss the topic without the bullshit? Are you 7 years old? I said Weber isn't a top 40 coach, you challenged me, I responded, you responded with a non-answer. I don't know man, when adults are having a conversation it usually goes something like this
Adult 1 "I think snickers are the best candy"
Adult 2 "Nah not really"
Adult 1 "I really can't think of a candy I like better"
Adult 2 "Well I like, 3 Musketeers, Twix, and Reece's Peanut Butter Cups more"
If you don't have a contribution to the objection that YOU raised, then just shut the eff up.
Anyone can look at a list and spew forth that they see 40 some odd guys on there they think are better than the current coach.
Who are these 40 some guys better than Weber?
I am not the least bit surprised that you think Underwood would be better, because the too cool for schoolers on this board will carry the water for anyone associated with Frank Martin's slightly above mediocre stint as K-State's head coach until the river runs dry . . . and hey, I like Brad, I remember watching chubby Brad Underwood shoot from way out when K-State was getting blown out at the end of the Jack Hartman era. Plus, who can forget Brad bailing out the clueless Frank Martin down the stretch during Frank's tenure at K-State.
There's a reason why I didn't make a list, I don't have enough time and don't care enough to prove something to ypu to take that much time. Why don't you do what I did and take 5 minutes to go down that list and see how many D1 coaches you think are better than Weber. You obviously won't have him in the 40 range because Dax couldn't possibly be wrong. But since you're so adamant that anyone not placing him in the top 25 is a too cool for schooler, I'm moderately interested in your semi-honest placing of Weber.
-
Being that oscar Weber is our coach, this thread already kinda sucked. This pissing match is making it infinitely worse though.
-
So, like, hope we get Clark. Seemed like he dug his visit and would be a decent fit.
-
I can't decide if I want our ball team to be good, or downright horrible so oscar can move on.
So conflicted guys :frown: :dunno:
-
Well well well, looks like we got a good ole' fashion in-which-multiple-of-ten-does-oscar-webber-fall-in-athon....
-
I’ll just add some fuel to this. Dax, reconcile your Briles > Snyder take with the there aren’t 40 coaches better than oscar Weber right now take. Seems to be opposing views.
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
-
dax just called zacker a squawk
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
They are actually similar scenarios. Your argument for Briles > Snyder is that from this point forward he’s better, but if you base it on what they’ve done, Snyder > Briles (i.e. their resumes).
but yeah, I'm a total ku fan. so you got me, chief.
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
They are actually similar scenarios. Your argument for Briles > Snyder is that from this point forward he’s better, but if you base it on what they’ve done, Snyder > Briles (i.e. their resumes).
but yeah, I'm a total ku fan. so you got me, chief.
So I based my Briles > Snyder on things that hadn't happened yet?? Fascinating, I'll have to back and look because I recall discussing head-to-head matchups, the state of Baylor's program prior to Briles taking over, the prolific nature of Briles offense (you know, actual statistical results) etc. etc.
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
i mean i think the issue is that people have different definitions of top 40 coaches or whatever. for me, it would basically be a list of people that i would want to coach my team and not a list of best resumes without a name at the top. for dax it's different (at least when discussing basketball but not so much football).
His list is like when they list teams for consideration into the bball tournament and tell you their record and top 50 wins et al but don't tell you who the teams actually are. he doesn't care that oscar is towards the bottom of a free fall into nothing because he won a title fifteen years ago at siu just like those nameless bball resumes don't tell you that some team is in a crap conference and their best player broke his leg two weeks ago and another just got ruled inelegible because of grades.
-
A free fall is going 27-9 and having the highest number of single season wins in K-State history and putting the first conference championship trophy in the trophy case in 35 years?
Frank doesn't do that. In fact, Frank would have completely lost his mind with that team last year and Shane Southwell doesn't smile once the entire season while riding the bench because he farted or looked at Frank cross eyed in the middle of one of Frank's meltdowns.
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
They are actually similar scenarios. Your argument for Briles > Snyder is that from this point forward he’s better, but if you base it on what they’ve done, Snyder > Briles (i.e. their resumes).
but yeah, I'm a total ku fan. so you got me, chief.
So I based my Briles > Snyder on things that hadn't happened yet?? Fascinating, I'll have to back and look because I recall discussing head-to-head matchups, the state of Baylor's program prior to Briles taking over, the prolific nature of Briles offense (you know, actual statistical results) etc. etc.
Yeah, i thought that's what your argument was because head to head matchups would mean Ron Prince > Mack Brown. But that's actual results, bud.
I'm done responding to you; you're a child.
-
A free fall is going 27-9 and having the highest number of single season wins in K-State history and putting the first conference championship trophy in the trophy case in 35 years?
Frank doesn't do that. In fact, Frank would have completely lost his mind with that team last year and Shane Southwell doesn't smile once the entire season while riding the bench because he farted or looked at Frank cross eyed in the middle of one of Frank's meltdowns.
Frank doesn't lose in the first round to a 12 seed whose tallest player is 6'4", either.
-
A free fall is going 27-9 and having the highest number of single season wins in K-State history and putting the first conference championship trophy in the trophy case in 35 years?
Frank doesn't do that. In fact, Frank would have completely lost his mind with that team last year and Shane Southwell doesn't smile once the entire season while riding the bench because he farted or looked at Frank cross eyed in the middle of one of Frank's meltdowns.
Frank doesn't lose in the first round to a 12 seed whose tallest player is 6'4", either.
Thing is, Frank would have been in the NIT. That's one of the reasons Frank left, he looked at what he'd created and determined he needed to bail.
-
LOL, it's a simple discussion. Don't say, "I see 40 guys" and then not say who they are.
It's just pure hate just to hate to say Weber doesn't belong on a list of Top 40 or 50 coaches, based on the lists I've seen his overall resume blows some of the guys on those lists out of the water.
Zacker, did you become a ku fan overnight? Sounds exactly like the co-mingling of different sports to attempt (poorly) to make a point.
They are actually similar scenarios. Your argument for Briles > Snyder is that from this point forward he’s better, but if you base it on what they’ve done, Snyder > Briles (i.e. their resumes).
but yeah, I'm a total ku fan. so you got me, chief.
So I based my Briles > Snyder on things that hadn't happened yet?? Fascinating, I'll have to back and look because I recall discussing head-to-head matchups, the state of Baylor's program prior to Briles taking over, the prolific nature of Briles offense (you know, actual statistical results) etc. etc.
Yeah, i thought that's what your argument was because head to head matchups would mean Ron Prince > Mack Brown. But that's actual results, bud.
I'm done responding to you; you're a child.
I used a whole host of criteria dumbass, including the head to head matchup. When the closted tucks showed themselves (as usual) I then hammered home the head-to-head matchup.
Just because your original foray into this discussion was idiotic is no reason to get angry.
-
A free fall is going 27-9 and having the highest number of single season wins in K-State history and putting the first conference championship trophy in the trophy case in 35 years?
Frank doesn't do that. In fact, Frank would have completely lost his mind with that team last year and Shane Southwell doesn't smile once the entire season while riding the bench because he farted or looked at Frank cross eyed in the middle of one of Frank's meltdowns.
so basically what i've already said. a nameless resume with only positive work skills/things highlighted. wake me up when you respond with something that i haven't informed you about your stance.
-
If frank thought he couldn't succeed at ksu, it was probably more due to currie, vaughn, and the bullshit that took place with curt and jake, then curt, then jamar as well as probably a bunch of other crap we fans never heard abt
-
who the f cares about frank? frank's recruiting suck(ed) after mcgruder's class. and based on the rankings of the kids weber is bringing in, it looks like oscar's will too. jfc, weber sucking on his own has nothing to do with frank.
-
A free fall is going 27-9 and having the highest number of single season wins in K-State history and putting the first conference championship trophy in the trophy case in 35 years?
Frank doesn't do that. In fact, Frank would have completely lost his mind with that team last year and Shane Southwell doesn't smile once the entire season while riding the bench because he farted or looked at Frank cross eyed in the middle of one of Frank's meltdowns.
Frank doesn't lose in the first round to a 12 seed whose tallest player is 6'4", either.
Thing is, Frank would have been in the NIT. That's one of the reasons Frank left, he looked at what he'd created and determined he needed to bail.
OK :jerk:
-
I'll take on the haters one at a time:
Zacker: Frank is completely relevant to the conversation when the haters bring up the "other peoples players". Frank wouldn't have taken that team to the NCAA tourney nor sniffed at a conference title. Those guys were sick of Frank and his bullshit.
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
-
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=8727.msg946477#msg946477
Nothing else really needs to be said. The writing is on the wall.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
-
Tubby Smith has an NC, 7 regular season conference titles and a 69% winning percentage, where would you put him in your list of coaches Dax?
-
Looks like or worse than Frank's recruiting? Interesting.
So, who in the last 4 years under Frank had an offer list comparable to Hurt? Maybe Gipson I guess.
247 sports lists Hurt's offer list as: K-State, Miami, Ole' Miss, Indiana, Arizona.
-
Tubby Smith has an NC, 7 regular season conference titles and a 69% winning percentage, where would you put him in your list of coaches Dax?
:dunno:
-
Rank the last serval recruiting classes 2008 - 2013 ? :dunno:
-
does anyone have a list of kids in the top 150 that oscar has signed?
-
Looks like or worse than Frank's recruiting? Interesting.
So, who in the last 4 years under Frank had an offer list comparable to Hurt? Maybe Gipson I guess.
247 sports lists Hurt's offer list as: K-State, Miami, Ole' Miss, Indiana, Arizona.
Upshaw had offers from Georgetown and Louisville.
-
Looks like or worse than Frank's recruiting? Interesting.
So, who in the last 4 years under Frank had an offer list comparable to Hurt? Maybe Gipson I guess.
247 sports lists Hurt's offer list as: K-State, Miami, Ole' Miss, Indiana, Arizona.
Upshaw had offers from Georgetown and Louisville.
Man, dodged a bullet there.
-
does anyone have a list of kids in the top 150 that oscar has signed?
So your expectation was that Weber was going to step in and start signing Top 150 kids?
-
1) 2009 Henriquez, Irving,
Judge, McGruder, Russell, Peterson :bawl:
2) 2011 Diaz, Gipson, Jones, Lawrence, Rodriquez, Watson
3) 2013 Fincher, Foster, Westicles, Johnson, Karapetyan, Thomas
4) 2010 Asprilla, Myles, Southwell, Spradling, Williams
5) 2012 Johnson, Orris
6) 2008 Awaji, Herrera
Seems oscar and Frank are on the same level, :dunno:
-
Once get past the McGruder/Judge -(Total Bust) class, Frank signed 1 Top 150 guy as I recall.
Gipson who was 147 (Rivals)
-
Looks like or worse than Frank's recruiting? Interesting.
So, who in the last 4 years under Frank had an offer list comparable to Hurt? Maybe Gipson I guess.
247 sports lists Hurt's offer list as: K-State, Miami, Ole' Miss, Indiana, Arizona.
Upshaw had offers from Georgetown and Louisville.
Man, dodged a bullet there.
Angel Rodriguez had offers from Miami, Louisville, and NC State.
Once get past the McGruder/Judge -(Total Bust) class, Frank signed 1 Top 150 guy as I recall.
Gipson who was 147 (Rivals)
Diaz was 148. Southwell was 131.
-
So, going down the stretch, Frank signed 3 Fringe 150 guys (and when you have Adrian Diaz on the list, we are talking fringe) and another guy with a decent offer list. Wow, you could really see the recruiting momentum build after that Elite 8 run couldn't you.
-
What do you mean, "fringe"? You are either on the list or you aren't. Diaz was a solid prospect, and this team would be much better with him than they are going to be without him this year.
-
1) 2009 Henriquez, Irving, Judge, McGruder, Russell, Peterson :bawl:
2) 2011 Diaz, Gipson, Jones, Lawrence, Rodriquez, Watson
3) 2013 Fincher, Foster, Westicles, Johnson, Karapetyan, Thomas
4) 2010 Asprilla, Myles, Southwell, Spradling, Williams
5) 2012 Johnson, Orris
6) 2008 Awaji, Herrera
Seems oscar and Frank are on the same level, :dunno:
Whatever happened to Neville Fincher? Community college? Sorry if luke'd.
-
1) 2009 Henriquez, Irving, Judge, McGruder, Russell, Peterson :bawl:
2) 2011 Diaz, Gipson, Jones, Lawrence, Rodriquez, Watson
3) 2013 Fincher, Foster, Westicles, Johnson, Karapetyan, Thomas
4) 2010 Asprilla, Myles, Southwell, Spradling, Williams
5) 2012 Johnson, Orris
6) 2008 Awaji, Herrera
Seems oscar and Frank are on the same level, :dunno:
Whatever happened to Neville Fincher? Community college? Sorry if luke'd.
didn't qualify.
-
What do you mean, "fringe"? You are either on the list or you aren't. Diaz was a solid prospect, and this team would be much better with him than they are going to be without him this year.
Once you start getting up there those rankings become so absurdly subjective it's barely even worth getting into.
-
1) 2009 Henriquez, Irving, Judge, McGruder, Russell, Peterson :bawl:
2) 2011 Diaz, Gipson, Jones, Lawrence, Rodriquez, Watson
3) 2013 Fincher, Foster, Westicles, Johnson, Karapetyan, Thomas
4) 2010 Asprilla, Myles, Southwell, Spradling, Williams
5) 2012 Johnson, Orris
6) 2008 Awaji, Herrera
Seems oscar and Frank are on the same level, :dunno:
Whatever happened to Neville Fincher? Community college? Sorry if luke'd.
didn't qualify.
Yeah, I know. I mean, what is he doing now? I would assume someone who didn't qualify would try to go to a Juco.
-
1) 2009 Henriquez, Irving, Judge, McGruder, Russell, Peterson :bawl:
2) 2011 Diaz, Gipson, Jones, Lawrence, Rodriquez, Watson
3) 2013 Fincher, Foster, Westicles, Johnson, Karapetyan, Thomas
4) 2010 Asprilla, Myles, Southwell, Spradling, Williams
5) 2012 Johnson, Orris
6) 2008 Awaji, Herrera
Seems oscar and Frank are on the same level, :dunno:
Whatever happened to Neville Fincher? Community college? Sorry if luke'd.
didn't qualify.
Yeah, I know. I mean, what is he doing now? I would assume someone who didn't qualify would try to go to a Juco.
ohhh, i don't know actually.
-
Fincher is at Navarro, I have no idea if Brooks placed him their or not.
-
Zacker: Frank is completely relevant to the conversation when the haters bring up the "other peoples players". Frank wouldn't have taken that team to the NCAA tourney nor sniffed at a conference title. Those guys were sick of Frank and his bullshit.
So weird that the guys who were sick of Frank and his bullshit have since gone to South Carolina to hang out with him. (drugs?)
-
Fincher is at Navarro, I have no idea if Brooks placed him their or not.
:thumbs:
-
Zacker: Frank is completely relevant to the conversation when the haters bring up the "other peoples players". Frank wouldn't have taken that team to the NCAA tourney nor sniffed at a conference title. Those guys were sick of Frank and his bullshit.
So weird that the guys who were sick of Frank and his bullshit have since gone to South Carolina to hang out with him. (drugs?)
Hanging out and playing for are different??? :dunno:
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
If you wanting oscar to be successful at K-State you are hoping oscar was a bad fit at Illinois. He wasn't a dominate coach and didn't fall on his face during his Illinois tenure. One thing that helps is I like his staff at K-State better then the one a Illinois. At the end of the day he is going to have to bring in good players that fit his system here. Something I don't think he did well at Illinois.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
There's nothing more juvenile than to be so blinded by hate that one can't even bring themselves to even think about oscar Weber being a Top 40 or 50 coach, particularly in light of the fact that there's many on these lists who are at lessor schools in non power conferences and/or at schools with relatively low basketball expectations. The "resume talking points" line in the context of a Top 40 or 50 coaches list is idiotic because once you get past about 10 or 12 guys, the rest of the list is comprised of guys who have nothing more than a bullet point list of "accomplishments' to point to that for the most part look like they were stamped on a production line or written by an SID for a coaches bio. Thus making Weber every bit as applicable to a Top 40 coaches list as about 20 other guys.
Can't even consider the Mike Davis (dumb) talking point because when you coach in a conference where the regular season champion only makes the "First Four" it's not the same level of competition.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
There's nothing more juvenile than to be so blinded by hate that one can't even bring themselves to even think about oscar Weber being a Top 40 or 50 coach, particularly in light of the fact that there's many on these lists who are at lessor schools in non power conferences and/or at schools with relatively low basketball expectations. The "resume talking points" line in the context of a Top 40 or 50 coaches list is idiotic because once you get past about 10 or 12 guys, the rest of the list is comprised of guys who have nothing more than a bullet point list of "accomplishments' to point to that for the most part look like they were stamped on a production line or written by an SID for a coaches bio. Thus making Weber every bit as applicable to a Top 40 coaches list as about 20 other guys.
Can't even consider the Mike Davis (dumb) talking point because when you coach in a conference where the regular season champion only makes the "First Four" it's not the same level of competition.
:thumbs:
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
There's nothing more juvenile than to be so blinded by hate that one can't even bring themselves to even think about oscar Weber being a Top 40 or 50 coach, particularly in light of the fact that there's many on these lists who are at lessor schools in non power conferences and/or at schools with relatively low basketball expectations. The "resume talking points" line in the context of a Top 40 or 50 coaches list is idiotic because once you get past about 10 or 12 guys, the rest of the list is comprised of guys who have nothing more than a bullet point list of "accomplishments' to point to that for the most part look like they were stamped on a production line or written by an SID for a coaches bio. Thus making Weber every bit as applicable to a Top 40 coaches list as about 20 other guys.
Can't even consider the Mike Davis (dumb) talking point because when you coach in a conference where the regular season champion only makes the "First Four" it's not the same level of competition.
my point is that oscar would not be on my top 40 because he isn't one of the top 40 coaches that i would want coaching kstate and because i take things other than just overall lifetime winning percentage, etc. into consideration.
throw him up on your top 40 all you want to though dax. you seem to have different criteria. criteria that somehow discounts mike davis despite a nearly identical career in every way that you've used to justify oscar so far, but different none the less.
-
Mike Davis went from a Big 10 school to a C-USA school, so if you want to consider K-State and the Big 12 equal to a meddling C-USA school go ahead Rick, but no thanks for me.
In terms of wanting someone at K-State, welp, I am not totally sold on Weber either, but you can't fap it all day long and twice on Sunday to that 40 coaches you'd like to have at K-State list because there's only a small amount of those who are going to move the needle and they aren't coming to K-State . . . insofar as the rest goes they're every bit the risk if not moreso than Weber is/was, some of those guys on those lists are barely clinging to the jobs they have.
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
If you had a chance to go live in Charleston and make a nice chunk of cash coaching basketball, you'd go to zacker.
In addition, Davis was fired at UAB for relatively non on court performance reasons and was so sought out by other similar or higher schools he ended up at Texas Southern on an interim basis, at first anyway.
-
Mods, can you move this crap somewhere else...please?
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Also, let's not say "only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" like that is something impressive.
-
Mods, can you move this crap somewhere else...please?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m5kbumtPpi1r777xho1_500.gif&hash=80238a193a14abbd2176dc28923139ad13488e60)
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Also, let's not say "only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" like that is something impressive.
In the context of the college the D1 college coaching ranks, it kind of is, unless you're talking about a very small group of guys who never, ever coach The Kansas State University.
-
I'm interested to see what 'clams' dossier on this young gun says. I love 'clams' hoops dossiers. For my money there just aren't better dossiers out there.
hey bread just came across this dossier request. sorry about not responding to it sooner but you know how it is...
who are we talking about here? i'll pull up my portfolio and see about getting that data to you on the A-LINE.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Also, let's not say "only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" like that is something impressive.
In the context of the college the D1 college coaching ranks, it kind of is, unless you're talking about a very small group of guys who never, ever coach The Kansas State University.
Our last head coach only has one losing season overall and one losing season in conference play, and he didn't have any until we ran him off to take over one of the worst programs in all of college basketball.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Also, let's not say "only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" like that is something impressive.
In the context of the college the D1 college coaching ranks, it kind of is, unless you're talking about a very small group of guys who never, ever coach The Kansas State University.
Our last head coach only has one losing season overall and one losing season in conference play, and he didn't have any until we ran him off to take over one of the worst programs in all of college basketball.
Okay.
But I only put part of the reason as to Frank leaving as "we" ran him off (I guess Currie's name is we now).
Frank also left because he looked at the roster and realized that his $hit recruiting left the cupboard empty and the talent that was here was sick of the guy and would have never even come close to their limited potential with Frank ranting and melting down on the sidelines as he pulled Southwell out for not sweating hard enough. Plus how many more circa 1980 (and before) offenses could Brad Underwood pull out of the bag of tricks to teach to a clueless Frank Martin?
-
Mods, can you move this crap somewhere else...please?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m5kbumtPpi1r777xho1_500.gif&hash=80238a193a14abbd2176dc28923139ad13488e60)
Thanks SD, you're a real good guy.
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
If you had a chance to go live in Charleston and make a nice chunk of cash coaching basketball, you'd go to zacker.
In addition, Davis was fired at UAB for relatively non on court performance reasons and was so sought out by other similar or higher schools he ended up at Texas Southern on an interim basis, at first anyway.
davis ended up at UAB because that is what should happen to big10 coaches that make the national championship final game with someone elses players in their second year and then go on to a .500 conference record in their remaining years. both got fired because of their subsequent performances as a coach. both were considered guys that should be fired.
the best gig davis could get was UAB and the best gig weber was going to get was charleston. whether zacker would or would not take money to go coach basketball in charleston is beside the point and in no way should factor into whether oscar is a top 40 coach or not.
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
If you had a chance to go live in Charleston and make a nice chunk of cash coaching basketball, you'd go to zacker.
In addition, Davis was fired at UAB for relatively non on court performance reasons and was so sought out by other similar or higher schools he ended up at Texas Southern on an interim basis, at first anyway.
davis ended up at UAB because that is what should happen to big10 coaches that make the national championship final game with someone elses players in their second year and then go on to a .500 conference record in their remaining years. both got fired because of their subsequent performances as a coach. both were considered guys that should be fired.
the best gig davis could get was UAB and the best gig weber was going to get was charleston. whether zacker would or would not take money to go coach basketball in charleston is beside the point and in no way should factor into whether oscar is a top 40 coach or not.
Yet, I suspect that if K-State would have hired Mike Davis you would have been ecstatic Daris, you too cool for schoolers are so transparent it's not even fun anymore.
You need to relax a little, and just go look at that Big 12 Championship trophy oscar Weber put into our trophy case. First time in 35 years that's happened.
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
-
I'm pretty sure Daris used Mike Davis as an example of somebody who would be an awful hire by K-State. Who would be ecstatic about him?
-
Yet, I suspect that if K-State would have hired Mike Davis you would have been ecstatic Daris, you too cool for schoolers are so transparent it's not even fun anymore.
what in the world dax
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
Nope.
I'm just going to let things play out. I do remember Frank putting K-State hoops into an exciting 2nd Round NIT game with San Diego State his second year as head coach.
-
It's only considered terrible in hindsight, come on fellas, this isn't my first rodeo with the too cool for schoolers.
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
Nope.
I'm just going to let things play out. I do remember Frank putting K-State hoops into an exciting 2nd Round NIT game with San Diego State his second year as head coach.
Way to play it safe there so you can't be wrong.
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
Nope.
I'm just going to let things play out. I do remember Frank putting K-State hoops into an exciting 2nd Round NIT game with San Diego State his second year as head coach.
that's great and all but it's so, so frustrating for the rest of us. you have to see that don't you? it's like an easy math problem and i'm sitting here and you are still carrying your 1's and 0's and i'm being as patient as i can but sooner or later i'm really hoping that you'll either-
A)finish the damn problem on your own and come up with the correct answer
or
B)believe me when i tell you the correct answer because i'm very good at math and already did it in my head
-
Did you know that Frank Martin used to teach math?
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
Nope.
I'm just going to let things play out. I do remember Frank putting K-State hoops into an exciting 2nd Round NIT game with San Diego State his second year as head coach.
that's great and all but it's so, so frustrating for the rest of us. you have to see that don't you? it's like an easy math problem and i'm sitting here and you are still carrying your 1's and 0's and i'm being as patient as i can but sooner or later i'm really hoping that you'll either-
A)finish the damn problem on your own and come up with the correct answer
or
B)believe me when i tell you the correct answer because i'm very good at math and already did it in my head
Dumb and you're wasting your frustration.
Very few on the list you guys have a boner about are going to come and coach at K-State. We got Bob Huggins because Bob Huggins didn't exactly have a lot of ducks on the pond, and he bolted the second his dream job came open.
The only Bob Huggins type scenario that exists out there is oscar Pearl who I was take in a second, but he's still got a show cause, albeit he should already be lawyer-ed up and suing the NCAA based on the Miami/Haith verdict IMO.
-
Sounds like Dax is predicting a better run than the "slightly above mediocre" one Frank had by oscar! :ksu:
Nope.
I'm just going to let things play out. I do remember Frank putting K-State hoops into an exciting 2nd Round NIT game with San Diego State his second year as head coach.
that's great and all but it's so, so frustrating for the rest of us. you have to see that don't you? it's like an easy math problem and i'm sitting here and you are still carrying your 1's and 0's and i'm being as patient as i can but sooner or later i'm really hoping that you'll either-
A)finish the damn problem on your own and come up with the correct answer
or
B)believe me when i tell you the correct answer because i'm very good at math and already did it in my head
Dumb and you're wasting your frustration.
Very few on the list you guys have a boner about are going to come and coach at K-State. We got Bob Huggins because Bob Huggins didn't exactly have a lot of ducks on the pond, and he bolted the second his dream job came open.
The only Bob Huggins type scenario that exists out there is oscar Pearl who I was take in a second, but he's still got a show cause, albeit he should already be lawyer-ed up and suing the NCAA based on the Miami/Haith verdict IMO.
fair enough. i'll get up from the table now and walk away. just shoot me a text when you are finished with 67+44 and are ready to move onto the next "problem" that needs solving.
-
I'm on team #playitout.
oscar did better with Frank's players than Frank could do with his players.
This year, well, we're a midmajor. Tallest player is 6'6?
oscar is a pretty average coach in the BigXII. xs and os may be above average, but he hasn't shown great results recruiting, thus far.
-
I'm on team #playitout.
oscar did better with Frank's players than Frank could do with his players.
This year, well, we're a midmajor. Tallest player is 6'6?
oscar is a pretty average coach in the BigXII. xs and os may be above average, but he hasn't shown great results recruiting, thus far.
ok then. be sure to get my number from dax and maybe the three of us can group text after you two scholars knock out this brainbuster and double check your answer in the back of the book. you're going to the game friday, i assume?
-
I'm on team #playitout.
oscar did better with Frank's players than Frank could do with his players.
This year, well, we're a midmajor. Tallest player is 6'6?
oscar is a pretty average coach in the BigXII. xs and os may be above average, but he hasn't shown great results recruiting, thus far.
If we’re going to be specific on what oscar did with Frank’s players, let also take into account the Big 12 that Frank coached in compared to the Big 12 that oscar coached in. WVUx2 < MUx2, TCU< NUx2, Techx2 < CUx2, A&M was good when Frank was here, hell, UT wasn’t the wreck it is now.
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
If you had a chance to go live in Charleston and make a nice chunk of cash coaching basketball, you'd go to zacker.
seems like a top 40 coach would have a lot of oppys to coach at actual basketball schools/conferences imo
-
i like that dax rails against snyder for wasting recruiting after a title, but he gives weber a free pass and calls everyone squawk tucks if they don't agree.
-
i like that dax rails against snyder for wasting recruiting after a title, but he gives weber a free pass and calls everyone squawk tucks if they don't agree.
IMO oscar had a pretty decent second recruiting class and he has a commitment from a kid who had legit offers from Indiana, Arizona, Miami, and Ole' Miss as well as many others.
In terms of Snyder he has a much longer track record at K-State, the football stadium is named after him and he's been given over $100 million dollars in new facilities. His recruiting could be better, but I've never said he had to land 4 and 5 star guys across the board (but one or two here and there isn't out of the question).
But where am I giving anyone a free pass, I never give a completely free pass and I am not calling anyone a squawk tuck.
Sad post bro, sad.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
-
If we’re going to be specific on what oscar did with Frank’s players, let also take into account the Big 12 that Frank coached in compared to the Big 12 that oscar coached in. WVUx2 < MUx2, TCU< NUx2, Techx2 < CUx2, A&M was good when Frank was here, hell, UT wasn’t the wreck it is now.
The BigXII Conference RPI has basically remained the same since Huggins got here in 2006. The one outlier is 09-10, when the BigXII had the best Conference RPI in America. The other 6 seasons have all been about the same. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/conference/rpi
Frank was a good coach. no question. just find it hard to muster the energy to get so excercised about Weber at this point. If he sucks in the next few years, fire him and move on.
-
If we’re going to be specific on what oscar did with Frank’s players, let also take into account the Big 12 that Frank coached in compared to the Big 12 that oscar coached in. WVUx2 < MUx2, TCU< NUx2, Techx2 < CUx2, A&M was good when Frank was here, hell, UT wasn’t the wreck it is now.
The BigXII Conference RPI has basically remained the same since Huggins got here in 2006. The one outlier is 09-10, when the BigXII had the best Conference RPI in America. The other 6 seasons have all been about the same. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/conference/rpi
Frank was a good coach. no question. just find it hard to muster the energy to get so excercised about Weber at this point. If he sucks in the next few years, fire him and move on.
the ol' ku football strategy, i like your thinking!
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
i mean there are a million ways that you can bullet point out stuff like this on a resume and that was my whole point. congrats for just proving it. you made weber look good. good job. let me know if you want me to exercise this out for you and do the opposite. hopefully i won't need to though.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
The biggest problem with your misplaced anger is that it's highly unlikely anyone that you would have spewed about being the K-State coach wasn't likely going to come coach at K-State.
Here's a little newflash since you don't seem to get it. Our last 3 coaches have been: Damaged goods with a bad rep that few if any would have taken a chance on, the promotion of his assistant, oscar Weber.
There's absolutely nothing in that track record that says that anyone on the too cool for schoolers coaching fap list would have dropped everything and run to coach at K-State. Oh and before you roll out some mid major type who you think would be the proverbial "can't miss" there's plenty of peril in that as well.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
The biggest problem with your misplaced anger is that it's highly unlikely anyone that you would have spewed about being the K-State coach wasn't likely going to come coach at K-State.
Here's a little newflash since you don't seem to get it. Our last 3 coaches have been: Damaged goods with a bad rep that few if any would have taken a chance on, the promotion of his assistant, oscar Weber.
There's absolutely nothing in that track record that says that anyone on the too cool for schoolers coaching fap list would have dropped everything and run to coach at K-State. Oh and before you roll out some mid major type who you think would be the proverbial "can't miss" there's plenty of peril in that as well.
In fairness Dax, the 2012 coaching search should've been able to offer a better job, with better fan support, and better talent and facilities than the 2006 one did.
-
well thank god we got the recently fired guy with a good resume who was otherwise headed to charleston
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
The biggest problem with your misplaced anger is that it's highly unlikely anyone that you would have spewed about being the K-State coach wasn't likely going to come coach at K-State.
Here's a little newflash since you don't seem to get it. Our last 3 coaches have been: Damaged goods with a bad rep that few if any would have taken a chance on, the promotion of his assistant, oscar Weber.
There's absolutely nothing in that track record that says that anyone on the too cool for schoolers coaching fap list would have dropped everything and run to coach at K-State. Oh and before you roll out some mid major type who you think would be the proverbial "can't miss" there's plenty of peril in that as well.
In fairness Dax, the 2012 coaching search should've been able to offer a better job, with better fan support, and better talent and facilities than the 2006 one did.
At K-State, that gets great interest from a really good mid-major coach.
Nobody that's good is leaving a major conference D1 program for K-State in '12.
-
At K-State, that gets great interest from a really good mid-major coach.
Nobody that's good is leaving a major conference D1 program for K-State in '12.
would've taken
-
At K-State, that gets great interest from a really good mid-major coach.
Nobody that's good is leaving a major conference D1 program for K-State in '12.
would've taken
Name names and why.
-
gregg marshall
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
It is stupid to compare them since their overall records are nothing a like! Weber has an extremely solid record pre- Illinois Davis as no record before IU. Davis has an overall conference record of 63% Weber 68%. despite Weber spending his in far more highly regarded conferences. Weber's over record .676, Davis .606. Weber has made the NCAA tourney 9 of 16 years, Davis 5 of 13. Weber has a S16 and 3 NCAA tourney wins outised of his BigTen tour. Mike Davis has all of 1 NCAA tourney appearance and no wins! Weber placed 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters made mostly of his players, Davis never did better than 4th. There is no comparison! There are many things to bash oscar for so the weak sauce of trying to equate him and Davis was pretty sad. So why was that attempt made in the first place? :dunno:
-
Yeah. I would have much more preferred rolling the dice on someone who may have turned out a loser than settling for someone who was a proven loser.
But we got our reg season title so we can retire basketball for another 20 years!
-
But we got our reg season title so we can retire basketball for another 20 years!
I don't think anybody is saying this.
-
But we got our reg season title so we can retire basketball for another 20 years!
I don't think anybody is saying this.
yes, oscar did.
-
Weber was going to the College of Charleston before Currie called. just sayin'
If you had a chance to go live in Charleston and make a nice chunk of cash coaching basketball, you'd go to zacker.
seems like a top 40 coach would have a lot of oppys to coach at actual basketball schools/conferences imo
Rumor at the time was that his Charleston salary was being discussed in the $750,000 range. Seems low for a top guy. :dunno:
-
Let's take someone like Lon Kruger. Lon has been pretty damn smart, because he's about a half an eyelash away from being "proven loser". He managed to parlay his current gig(s) into bigger gig(s) despite taking every situation from pretty damn good, to pretty damn mediocre (of course he was a total bomb with the Hawks). He managed to jettison every sinking ship just in time at every collegiate stop, and arguably you could even include K-State in that mix. Yet, pretty much across the board he's considered a very good (if not great) basketball coach by many.
$750K is a lot of money for a school like CofC.
-
Daris: Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play. You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.
gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.
Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.
everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.
also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.
Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like :surprised:
i mean there are a million ways that you can bullet point out stuff like this on a resume and that was my whole point. congrats for just proving it. you made weber look good. good job. let me know if you want me to exercise this out for you and do the opposite. hopefully i won't need to though.
So you're saying Mike Davis and Weber do have similar resumes? Yes you can simply remove data at your pleasing to attempt to make Davis look better but I didn't attempt to make a blind comparison of partial data. I did a complete comparison of all data points for 2 known entities. This isn't bullet pointing things to make Weber look good this was pointing out all the data points to show that 2 different wholes weren't comparable, the absolute opposite of what you want to do. You want to parse out data points that fit your desired end result to make the 2 appear equal. I used all data to show there isn't anything equal about them.
-
Let's take someone like Lon Kruger. Lon has been pretty damn smart, because he's about a half an eyelash away from being "proven loser". He managed to parlay his current gig(s) into bigger gig(s) despite taking every situation from pretty damn good, to pretty damn mediocre (of course he was a total bomb with the Hawks). He managed to jettison every sinking ship just in time at every collegiate stop, and arguably you could even include K-State in that mix. Yet, pretty much across the board he's considered a very good (if not great) basketball coach by many.
$750K is a lot of money for a school like CofC.
Irrelevant. The point is that if he was a top guy, he would be mushing these offers rather than having no other alternative other than retirement or staying out of the game.
-
Let's take someone like Lon Kruger. Lon has been pretty damn smart, because he's about a half an eyelash away from being "proven loser". He managed to parlay his current gig(s) into bigger gig(s) despite taking every situation from pretty damn good, to pretty damn mediocre (of course he was a total bomb with the Hawks). He managed to jettison every sinking ship just in time at every collegiate stop, and arguably you could even include K-State in that mix. Yet, pretty much across the board he's considered a very good (if not great) basketball coach by many.
$750K is a lot of money for a school like CofC.
cool story bro
:dunno:
-
T-Y mods for splitting out this exciting topic. I'd have never read it it stuck in a recruiting thread.
2 things I'd point out in response to Dax's strikes against Joe Cool.
Nobody thinks Weber sucks because they hate him. They hate him because he suck and now that affects K-State. Aside from big-time Illini fan Daris, I believe all EMAWs* were completely indifferent to Weber until he ruined a hot dog rally and was getting his hand mangled by Ernie Barnett.
You love to bring up Shane as this guy who was crap under Frank and blossomed under Weber. Shane was deeper in the hole (shoutout D.Scott) with Weber than he ever was with Frank until Nino got injured for the 29th time right in front of a bunch of Joe Cools' faces in Seattle (fanningbrag). Weber was forced to play Shane out of position and Shane took advantage of mismatches.
*Keady's lost his right to be called an EMAW
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
-
T-Y mods for splitting out this exciting topic. I'd have never read it it stuck in a recruiting thread.
2 things I'd point out in response to Dax's strikes against Joe Cool.
Nobody thinks Weber sucks because they hate him. They hate him because he suck and now that affects K-State. Aside from big-time Illini fan Daris, I believe all EMAWs* were completely indifferent to Weber until he ruined a hot dog rally and was getting his hand mangled by Ernie Barnett.
You love to bring up Shane as this guy who was crap under Frank and blossomed under Weber. Shane was deeper in the hole (shoutout D.Scott) with Weber than he ever was with Frank until Nino got injured for the 29th time right in front of a bunch of Joe Cools' faces in Seattle (fanningbrag). Weber was forced to play Shane out of position and Shane took advantage of mismatches.
*Keady's lost his right to be called an EMAW
Most of what you posted is just rehash of the rehash.
Regardless of how far Shane was or wasn't in the doghouse, he played, and he played with confidence. Never was going to happen under Frank . . . ever.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
cool story bro
:dunno:
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
cool story bro
:dunno:
A story chiseled in reality friend.
-
But we got our reg season title so we can retire basketball for another 20 years!
I don't think anybody is saying this.
Every time you say "just fire him in a few years if he sucks," you're actually saying "retire basketball for another 20 years".
-
But we got our reg season title so we can retire basketball for another 20 years!
I don't think anybody is saying this.
Every time you say "just fire him in a few years if he sucks," you're actually saying "retire basketball for another 20 years".
This isn't Jon Wefald making the hires and paying guys $350K a year Felix.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
cool story bro
:dunno:
A story chiseled in reality friend.
only thing chiseled here is my jawline
-
Mods, can you move this crap somewhere else...please?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m5kbumtPpi1r777xho1_500.gif&hash=80238a193a14abbd2176dc28923139ad13488e60)
Thanks SD, you're a real good guy.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m9ycg80exk1qjczh3o1_500.gif&hash=6ce676773fc3d45be9ffedd1a3b68d47eea00176)
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
cool story bro
:dunno:
A story chiseled in reality friend.
only thing chiseled here is my jawline
Um-hmm, this is a FanningBrag free zone.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
cool story bro
:dunno:
A story chiseled in reality friend.
only thing chiseled here is my jawline
Um-hmm, this is a FanningBrag free zone.
:D
-
T-Y mods for splitting out this exciting topic. I'd have never read it it stuck in a recruiting thread.
2 things I'd point out in response to Dax's strikes against Joe Cool.
Nobody thinks Weber sucks because they hate him. They hate him because he suck and now that affects K-State. Aside from big-time Illini fan Daris, I believe all EMAWs* were completely indifferent to Weber until he ruined a hot dog rally and was getting his hand mangled by Ernie Barnett.
You love to bring up Shane as this guy who was crap under Frank and blossomed under Weber. Shane was deeper in the hole (shoutout D.Scott) with Weber than he ever was with Frank until Nino got injured for the 29th time right in front of a bunch of Joe Cools' faces in Seattle (fanningbrag). Weber was forced to play Shane out of position and Shane took advantage of mismatches.
*Keady's lost his right to be called an EMAW
Most of what you posted is just rehash of the rehash.
Regardless of how far Shane was or wasn't in the doghouse, he played, and he played with confidence. Never was going to happen under Frank . . . ever.
My bad. I'll check back here next week to see if your highly original premise is being received any better. I've got cool kid crap to go do.
-
Every time you say "just fire him in a few years if he sucks," you're actually saying "retire basketball for another 20 years".
No, I'm not saying that.
-
T-Y mods for splitting out this exciting topic. I'd have never read it it stuck in a recruiting thread.
2 things I'd point out in response to Dax's strikes against Joe Cool.
Nobody thinks Weber sucks because they hate him. They hate him because he suck and now that affects K-State. Aside from big-time Illini fan Daris, I believe all EMAWs* were completely indifferent to Weber until he ruined a hot dog rally and was getting his hand mangled by Ernie Barnett.
You love to bring up Shane as this guy who was crap under Frank and blossomed under Weber. Shane was deeper in the hole (shoutout D.Scott) with Weber than he ever was with Frank until Nino got injured for the 29th time right in front of a bunch of Joe Cools' faces in Seattle (fanningbrag). Weber was forced to play Shane out of position and Shane took advantage of mismatches.
*Keady's lost his right to be called an EMAW
Most of what you posted is just rehash of the rehash.
Regardless of how far Shane was or wasn't in the doghouse, he played, and he played with confidence. Never was going to happen under Frank . . . ever.
My bad. I'll check back here next week to see if your highly original premise is being received any better. I've got cool kid crap to go do.
I crap original Trim- gEMAW friend.
-
I really am optimistic (with no good reason) that this board's discussion will turn from, "Should we have hired oscar Weber in the first place? YES/NO!" to "What constitutes success with oscar Weber and our basketball program? How long should he get to achieve that success? Are there any scenarios where that timeframe is shortened/lengthened?". I hated the hire, and I think that time will prove that I was correct in hating that hire, but there's nothing that can happen now but hope for the best (#BID is untenable and foolish, even though lots of us would like to think that it's neither, myself included).
-
I really am optimistic (with no good reason) that this board's discussion will turn from, "Should we have hired oscar Weber in the first place? YES/NO!" to "What constitutes success with oscar Weber and our basketball program? How long should he get to achieve that success? Are there any scenarios where that timeframe is shortened/lengthened?". I hated the hire, and I think that time will prove that I was correct in hating that hire, but there's nothing that can happen now but hope for the best (#BID is untenable and foolish, even though lots of us would like to think that it's neither, myself included).
Every imaginable iteration of the Weber debate has been discussed on here ad nauseam.
-
I really am optimistic (with no good reason) that this board's discussion will turn from, "Should we have hired oscar Weber in the first place? YES/NO!" to "What constitutes success with oscar Weber and our basketball program? How long should he get to achieve that success? Are there any scenarios where that timeframe is shortened/lengthened?". I hated the hire, and I think that time will prove that I was correct in hating that hire, but there's nothing that can happen now but hope for the best (#BID is untenable and foolish, even though lots of us would like to think that it's neither, myself included).
Every imaginable iteration of the Weber debate has been discussed on here ad nauseam.
We could at least beat the horse that we are riding to death, instead of doubling back and beating the rotting, decaying corpse of the horse that was killed a long time ago.
-
I really am optimistic (with no good reason) that this board's discussion will turn from, "Should we have hired oscar Weber in the first place? YES/NO!" to "What constitutes success with oscar Weber and our basketball program? How long should he get to achieve that success? Are there any scenarios where that timeframe is shortened/lengthened?". I hated the hire, and I think that time will prove that I was correct in hating that hire, but there's nothing that can happen now but hope for the best (#BID is untenable and foolish, even though lots of us would like to think that it's neither, myself included).
:thumbs:
-
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
The biggest problem with your misplaced anger is that it's highly unlikely anyone that you would have spewed about being the K-State coach wasn't likely going to come coach at K-State.
Here's a little newflash since you don't seem to get it. Our last 3 coaches have been: Damaged goods with a bad rep that few if any would have taken a chance on, the promotion of his assistant, oscar Weber.
There's absolutely nothing in that track record that says that anyone on the too cool for schoolers coaching fap list would have dropped everything and run to coach at K-State. Oh and before you roll out some mid major type who you think would be the proverbial "can't miss" there's plenty of peril in that as well.
It's not misplaced anger. We hired a proven loser. Whether that was Mike Davis or oscar Weber or anyone else. I'd have gone with someone who hasn't proved they will turn a good program and roster into a dumpster fire. And I especially wouldn't go after a guy whose alleged problem is his recruiting.
I wanted someone who wasn't a proven loser. There were/are plenty of those coaches. There's, hell I don't know, doing your homework while you whisk away to a Dallas hotel, and finding an assistant on a staff that can recruit and appears ready to be a head coach. There was plenty of options. We hired a proven loser.
-
jfc. During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar .675 / .578
Mike .592 / .572
Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9. Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).
Both were fired for performance. this is so stupid. oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking. it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it. He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.
The biggest problem with your misplaced anger is that it's highly unlikely anyone that you would have spewed about being the K-State coach wasn't likely going to come coach at K-State.
Here's a little newflash since you don't seem to get it. Our last 3 coaches have been: Damaged goods with a bad rep that few if any would have taken a chance on, the promotion of his assistant, oscar Weber.
There's absolutely nothing in that track record that says that anyone on the too cool for schoolers coaching fap list would have dropped everything and run to coach at K-State. Oh and before you roll out some mid major type who you think would be the proverbial "can't miss" there's plenty of peril in that as well.
It's not misplaced anger. We hired a proven loser. Whether that was Mike Davis or oscar Weber or anyone else. I'd have gone with someone who hasn't proved they will turn a good program and roster into a dumpster fire. And I especially wouldn't go after a guy whose alleged problem is his recruiting.
I wanted someone who wasn't a proven loser. There were/are plenty of those coaches. There's, hell I don't know, doing your homework while you whisk away to a Dallas hotel, and finding an assistant on a staff that can recruit and appears ready to be a head coach. There was plenty of options. We hired a proven loser.
Feels bad, man...
-
It says a lot about a person who they would pick as their college basketball head coach between oscar Weber and Doug Gottlieb if they were the only options. What a hypothetical.
-
It says a lot about a person who they would pick as their college basketball head coach between oscar Weber and Doug Gottlieb if they were the only options. What a hypothetical.
That was discussed back then. There hadn't been a better barometer of a person than that preference in some time.
-
So much to discuss. Timing is everything and that is why the hire of oscar Weber in 2012 was awful.
History lesson
oscar was a hot commodity in 2003 because he had won the Valley in 02 and 03. He also had a Sweet Sixteen appearance in 02. It was much more rare for a "Mid Major" to make the sweet sixteen at that time and it got a lot of press. ESPN at the time gave Southern Illinois some love and that helps fans and recruits respect the hire.
It doesn't feel as impressive today after Gonzaga, Butler, VCU, Florida Gulf Coast, Wichita State, St. Joseph's, and George Mason have all done better things since then.
At the time of oscar Weber's hire, it made a lot sense for Illinois to make that hire and nobody really batted an eye about it. Illinois had hired Bill Self from mid major Tulsa and lost him to KU. Self went to a program that was at worst 10th in the country at the time. Illini fans were mad that Self left but were not outraged by Weber being hired. Thus Illinois was the unlucky school to get oscar Weber.
Illinois didn't run off or appear to run off Bill Self. Self didn't go to a significantly worse coaching job like South Carolina.
The Illini were initially pleased with Weber's performance as he was 1st in Big 10 play in 2004 and 2005. He also was 2nd in 2006. He got his 2nd sweet sixteen in 2004 and a national title appearance in 2005. 3 players were drafted in 2005 James Augustine (41st), Deron Williams (3rd), Luther Head (24th). One player was drafted in 2006 Dee Brown (46th). With Dee Brown and Co. oscar had 3 NCAA appearances, 8 NCAA tournament wins and 2 Big 10 titles with a 2nd place.
At this point in his career, most Illini fans would have been suicidal if oscar would have left Illinois and K-State fans would have been almost universally ecstatic to bring him to Manhattan.
Then the wheels fell off. Over the next 6 seasons oscar Weber had one 2nd place finish, two 9th place finishes, and only one NCAA tournament win. After the last major Bill Self NBA recruit left (Dee Brown), one can easily make the case that oscar was driving that program into the ground. This got him fired from Illinois and caused oscar to nearly accept a job with the College of Charleston (showing how well oscar handles pressure).
At this point oscar should have went to a floundering program like Texas Tech or Nebraska to try and redeem himself. With his own recruits, he has only 2 good years to hang his hat on. A Sweet Sixteen with Southern Illinois and a 2nd place finish in the Big 10 in 2009. He should not be allowed to go to a K-State Program that had been into the tournament 4 of the last 5 years, with 6 NCAA tournament Wins, a second place finish in the Big 12 and an Electric Elite 8 run in 2010 which really put Frank Martin and K-State on the Map Nationally.
Where do we stand today?
One can say whatever they want about Frank Martin but the fact is that his program was very successful in most respects over the last 5 years (with the exception of being obviously inferior to Bill Self). Most likely any coach that we could have hired, would be widely despised in year 3, 4 or 5 and fired or chased out after year 5. The chances of oscar outdoing Frank were already slim (four of five years in the Dance is a tall order) and losing Angel virtually seals the deal.
1 or 2 tournament wins in 5 years won't cut it.
Losing to KU every time won't cut it.
I think that oscar needs to have 4 NCAA tournament wins to be our coach past 2016-2017 and I would bet that he will get 0.
I will change my opinion and apologize to everyone on this board and gopowercat, if oscar gets to an Elite 8 or wins another Big 12 title during these next 4 years. That is my mark for a fantastic year. I consider last years Co Championship more of a Frank Martin/Brad Underwood championship than a oscar Weber championship.
-
So much to discuss. Timing is everything and that is why the hire of oscar Weber in 2012 was awful.
History lesson
oscar was a hot commodity in 2003 because he had won the Valley in 02 and 03. He also had a Sweet Sixteen appearance in 02. It was much more rare for a "Mid Major" to make the sweet sixteen at that time and it got a lot of press. ESPN at the time gave Southern Illinois some love and that helps fans and recruits respect the hire.
It doesn't feel as impressive today after Gonzaga, Butler, VCU, Florida Gulf Coast, Wichita State, St. Joseph's, and George Mason have all done better things since then.
At the time of oscar Weber's hire, it made a lot sense for Illinois to make that hire and nobody really batted an eye about it. Illinois had hired Bill Self from mid major Tulsa and lost him to KU. Self went to a program that was at worst 10th in the country at the time. Illini fans were mad that Self left but were not outraged by Weber being hired. Thus Illinois was the unlucky school to get oscar Weber.
Illinois didn't run off or appear to run off Bill Self. Self didn't go to a significantly worse coaching job like South Carolina.
The Illini were initially pleased with Weber's performance as he was 1st in Big 10 play in 2004 and 2005. He also was 2nd in 2006. He got his 2nd sweet sixteen in 2004 and a national title appearance in 2005. 3 players were drafted in 2005 James Augustine (41st), Deron Williams (3rd), Luther Head (24th). One player was drafted in 2006 Dee Brown (46th). With Dee Brown and Co. oscar had 3 NCAA appearances, 8 NCAA tournament wins and 2 Big 10 titles with a 2nd place.
At this point in his career, most Illini fans would have been suicidal if oscar would have left Illinois and K-State fans would have been almost universally ecstatic to bring him to Manhattan.
Then the wheels fell off. Over the next 6 seasons oscar Weber had one 2nd place finish, two 9th place finishes, and only one NCAA tournament win. After the last major Bill Self NBA recruit left (Dee Brown), one can easily make the case that oscar was driving that program into the ground. This got him fired from Illinois and caused oscar to nearly accept a job with the College of Charleston (showing how well oscar handles pressure).
At this point oscar should have went to a floundering program like Texas Tech or Nebraska to try and redeem himself. With his own recruits, he has only 2 good years to hang his hat on. A Sweet Sixteen with Southern Illinois and a 2nd place finish in the Big 10 in 2009. He should not be allowed to go to a K-State Program that had been into the tournament 4 of the last 5 years, with 6 NCAA tournament Wins, a second place finish in the Big 12 and an Electric Elite 8 run in 2010 which really put Frank Martin and K-State on the Map Nationally.
Where do we stand today?
One can say whatever they want about Frank Martin but the fact is that his program was very successful in most respects over the last 5 years (with the exception of being obviously inferior to Bill Self). Most likely any coach that we could have hired, would be widely despised in year 3, 4 or 5 and fired or chased out after year 5. The chances of oscar outdoing Frank were already slim (four of five years in the Dance is a tall order) and losing Angel virtually seals the deal.
1 or 2 tournament wins in 5 years won't cut it.
Losing to KU every time won't cut it.
I think that oscar needs to have 4 NCAA tournament wins to be our coach past 2016-2017 and I would bet that he will get 0.
I will change my opinion and apologize to everyone on this board and gopowercat, if oscar gets to an Elite 8 or wins another Big 12 title during these next 4 years. That is my mark for a fantastic year. I consider last years Co Championship more of a Frank Martin/Brad Underwood championship than a oscar Weber championship.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FTayDidNotRead.gif&hash=f0e294bddeffe97e7e6c409ea70442646b3ed9ae)
-
that's a very fair write up by vonlintel. basically it wasn't a horrible hire when illinois hired him, it was when k-state did. oh well though, only five years or ten percent or so (hopefully) of my adult life before we can cut this dork lose and take another swing.
-
I was just being honest. :dunno:
-
good post vonlintel
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
-
Wow, 7 pages of arguing with Dax's regurtitated talking points. Its an amazing skill to not address anyone's point directly but just reiterate his own point over and over yet get people to repeatedly respond. I came on here to see if he ever answered my question to start all of this, I'm a dumbass for expecting that and even dumber for reading these 7 pages expecting something different.
-
Wow, 7 pages of arguing with Dax's regurtitated talking points. Its an amazing skill to not address anyone's point directly but just reiterate his own point over and over yet get people to repeatedly respond. I came on here to see if he ever answered my question to start all of this, I'm a dumbass for expecting that and even dumber for reading these 7 pages expecting something different.
:thumbsup:
-
I'm on team #playitout.
oscar did better with Frank's players than Frank could do with his players.
This year, well, we're a midmajor. Tallest player is 6'6?
oscar is a pretty average coach in the BigXII. xs and os may be above average, but he hasn't shown great results recruiting, thus far.
Reasonable enough. Have you thought about what your line would be? Will you measure him by the state of the program when he arrived or on his own merits?
-
if oscar can be successful with this roster, then i will buy in.
if oscar fails with this roster then i will BID (quit)
if oscar is middle of the road then i will cry (quit)
-
I was okay with Frank fielding a bubble team his 2nd year, and I'd be cool with oscar fielding a bubble team in his 2nd year. If this season is a disaster though, I would hope that he'd have a very short leash. Every year after this year better be a tourney team, with enough talent in the program to make a run every 3-4 years. If oscar is able to maintain that level of success, then I would be comfortable with him guiding the ship until he retires. If we start missing the tourney every other year it's time for him to go though, I think 2 NIT appearances in 3 years should be enough to cost him his job. We can't afford to waste the limited amount of momentum we've built with our bball program.
-
Reasonable enough. Have you thought about what your line would be? Will you measure him by the state of the program when he arrived or on his own merits?
Sure. oscar should be measured by the state of the program when he arrived. Top 25 program, top 3rd of League, consistent NCAAs. Anything less is fireable, IMO.
Over next 5 years, he needs to be in 4 NCAAs. If he can do that, he'll have met and surpassed Frank. Because, of course, he got the title frank never sniffed.
-
Reasonable enough. Have you thought about what your line would be? Will you measure him by the state of the program when he arrived or on his own merits?
Sure. oscar should be measured by the state of the program when he arrived. Top 25 program, top 3rd of League, consistent NCAAs. Anything less is fireable, IMO.
Over next 5 years, he needs to be in 4 NCAAs. If he can do that, he'll have met and surpassed Frank. Because, of course, he got the title frank never sniffed.
Put me down for this. I don't know that ANYTHING less is fireable, but it better be in the ballpark.
-
I was okay with Frank fielding a bubble team his 2nd year, and I'd be cool with oscar fielding a bubble team in his 2nd year. If this season is a disaster though, I would hope that he'd have a very short leash. Every year after this year better be a tourney team, with enough talent in the program to make a run every 3-4 years. If oscar is able to maintain that level of success, then I would be comfortable with him guiding the ship until he retires. If we start missing the tourney every other year it's time for him to go though, I think 2 NIT appearances in 3 years should be enough to cost him his job. We can't afford to waste the limited amount of momentum we've built with our bball program.
Will judge him solely on how good Jevon, Marcus, Wesley and Nigel are in big 12 play and how they fit in his system. Do they give us a future. I really don't care what he does this year, I want to have hope for the next 3. He can coach but his problem has always be bring in players that fit his system.
-
Reasonable enough. Have you thought about what your line would be? Will you measure him by the state of the program when he arrived or on his own merits?
Sure. oscar should be measured by the state of the program when he arrived. Top 25 program, top 3rd of League, consistent NCAAs. Anything less is fireable, IMO.
Over next 5 years, he needs to be in 4 NCAAs. If he can do that, he'll have met and surpassed Frank. Because, of course, he got the title frank never sniffed.
:thumbs: :thumbs:
-
Reasonable enough. Have you thought about what your line would be? Will you measure him by the state of the program when he arrived or on his own merits?
Sure. oscar should be measured by the state of the program when he arrived. Top 25 program, top 3rd of League, consistent NCAAs. Anything less is fireable, IMO.
Over next 5 years, he needs to be in 4 NCAAs. If he can do that, he'll have met and surpassed Frank. Because, of course, he got the title frank never sniffed.
Put me down for this. I don't know that ANYTHING less is fireable, but it better be in the ballpark.
Context. I mean, if he gets another title or elite 8 or something, I suppose he could get away with another NIT/rebuild season. #playitout
-
#teamplayitout
-
If weber can make the dance with a team full of his Missouri valley recruits we ought to build him a statue for SD to kick balls at.
-
If weber can make the dance with a team full of his Missouri valley recruits we ought to build him a statue for SD to kick balls at.
:surprised:
-
If weber can make the dance with a team full of his Missouri valley recruits we ought to build him a statue for SD to kick balls at.
:surprised:
this sounds totally fair
-
Making the dance is not the measure I want. When you have something good, you only volunteer to make changes if it is to better the program. I like the top three in conf measure, but he needs to push past just making the tournament. Our national brand is suffering in the media. He needs to put a halt to that and reverse it. Also, this year's recruits are everything. It's a decent sized class. He needs one to pay off big, at min and to completely turn around what has been a crap show of recruiting next class and the one after.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
So I see we have to do this again huh :horrorsurprise: How often do you have to challenge me on facts only to be proven wrong? Unlike you I don't have any wierd, overly emotional reaction to Weber so I can look at actual facts and not look for ways to manipulate them to fit my predetermined preference. Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players. If that simple math doesn't work for you then you can't say he finished 9th twice with teams of all his players because one of those teams weren't all his players! Once again don't try and be a douche and correct someone about Illini facts when it's someon who has more knowledge about them than you!! :dunno:
-
if we are good then i will probably say that oscar is just a figure head arm crosser foot stomper and chet is the real coaching mastermind
-
hey guys, oscar finished second with his guys at Illinois. let's get excited.
-
This has been a spirited and lively debate.
I won of course, but thanks to each and every one of you for participating.
Ever in EMAW,
Dax
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUvTp8ZcJs
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUvTp8ZcJs
Isn't that precious.
-
if we are good then i will probably say that oscar is just a figure head arm crosser foot stomper and chet is the real coaching mastermind
yes, all credit should go to chet.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
-
you really cant see there is a difference between the players you win with and the players on the roster?
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
-
People who make dumb arguments seem to be the most angry about said arguments
-
All others on the team could be webs guys but if the top 4 scorers and min played are selfs guys, its a self team. Argue technicality and number of useless guys all you want.
-
If there was a top 40 list for coaches who win with other coaches players I'd probably put oscar on it. He's not completely terrible at that. He's completely terrible at everything else though.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
-
you are probably used to people resorting to name-calling against you.
-
I forgot what this thread is about.
-
i have three credit cards
-
Let's get angry for Pitt State!!!1
:angry:
-
All others on the team could be webs guys but if the top 4 scorers and min played are selfs guys, its a self team. Argue technicality and number of useless guys all you want.
What most people call a technicality is a provable fact! When 5 of the 9 guys who play 10 minutes or more per game or his players and 6 out 10 who saw regular minutes in over half the games played on a team in year 3 of a coach most people call that his team because the majority of the players playing are his. If you disagree define when it becomes his team. At what point does it become his team? since obviously it isn't when the majority of the guys playing being his isn't the line of demarcation for you.
-
you are probably used to people resorting to name-calling against you.
-
i'm assuming quietstorm is Jay Price unless otherwise noted.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
You were actually arguing with two different people here dumbfuck. I'm not feartheillini.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.
-
wasn't it jay price who got on message boards to defense oscar at illinois?
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
Also, dumbfuck, oscar didn't recruit Warren Carter. That's a Self stud from Texas. So by your logic that would make it 4 of 9 oscar rotation guys. Not his team now?
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
You were actually arguing with two different people here dumbfuck. I'm not feartheillini.
Uh-oh did your feelings get hurt again? I could have sworn you and Fear were the same guy on here and the Illini boards. You were the only idiots to try and prove me wrong about Quinton Watkins only to get be so easily proven wrong. My fault if you two aren't on in the same.
-
wasn't it jay price who got on message boards to defense oscar at illinois?
Yes, but that was when he worked for oscar. Would be nearly unfathomably pathetic if he were still doing it after oscar dropped him as dead weight.
-
only to get be so easily proven wrong
-
I would absolutely love an assistant getting on here to play defense and discuss things like recruiting failure.
-
I would absolutely love an assistant getting on here to play defense and discuss things like recruiting failure.
yes, please
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.
Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.
-
only to get be so easily proven wrong
ski-be is lying in a bayou somewhere with a fork stabbed straight through his cranium
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
Also, dumbfuck, oscar didn't recruit Warren Carter. That's a Self stud from Texas. So by your logic that would make it 4 of 9 oscar rotation guys. Not his team now?
I think that's the first factually correct statement you've made, so only half of the 10 regulars were Weber's! :dunno: And again my fault I didn't know your feelings got hurt so easily!
-
can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?
so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. :frown:
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.
Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.
i mean, if you are asking me whether or not i hope that in the two years that oscar has been here that he has been able to recruit someone that is better at basketball than nino williams then my answer would be yes.
-
can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?
so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. :frown:
Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
Also, dumbfuck, oscar didn't recruit Warren Carter. That's a Self stud from Texas. So by your logic that would make it 4 of 9 oscar rotation guys. Not his team now?
I think that's the first factually correct statement you've made, so only half of the 10 regulars were Weber's! :dunno: And again my fault I didn't know your feelings got hurt so easily!
so five of the top 9 players were self guys, the top four scorers were self guys and the top four ppg were self guys. yet you think it was oscar's team? you are an odd duck quietstorm5.
-
can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?
so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. :frown:
Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.
so were you a regular player that contributed a lot to your teams on the court success or failure?
yep. absolutely.
that's awesome. tell me about it.
i got a letter.
a letter? what do you mean?
i got a letter.
cool but i mean how many points and minutes and things of that nature?
letter.
what?
letter.
-
:lol:
-
While I don't really need know whether to be sad or overjoyed watching the great unwashed fight over the pitifully small remnants left in this thread.
I feel as though I must ask, are their any coaches on that "Interchangeable after #10" Top 40 or 50 coaches list who added numerous "Resume Talking Points" with other coaches players?
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.
Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.
i mean, if you are asking me whether or not i hope that in the two years that oscar has been here that he has been able to recruit someone that is better at basketball than nino williams then my answer would be yes.
No I'm asking is a team where at least 3 of the starters will be players recruited by Frank and almost assuredlly at minimum 4 of the top players in minutes played will be players Frank recruited, will it be Weber's team or Frank's? With the fact in mind that we know Weber can win with other coaches players.
-
can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?
so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. :frown:
Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.
so were you a regular player that contributed a lot to your teams on the court success or failure?
yep. absolutely.
that's awesome. tell me about it.
i got a letter.
a letter? what do you mean?
i got a letter.
cool but i mean how many points and minutes and things of that nature?
letter.
what?
letter.
Yeah playing in almost every game means nothing.
-
Oh good another rivals/scout poster that doesn't know how to cut down on their quotes per post.
-
Will and Nino are oscar guys, not Frank guys.
-
storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.
Not really. And he's making stuff up.
weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once. He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.
weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach. Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years). That's out of 100 or so such periods. He was in the 13th percentile.
That sucks.
Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.
Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.
The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits. Dee and James were seniors on that team. That wasn't a oscar squad. Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.
I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players. He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!
i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.
And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?
well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference, with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's. :dunno: depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.
hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.
Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.
Holy rough ridin' :DNR:, Batman
-
In order of minutes played:
1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence
What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5). If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.
-
Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster. He was done. Players (not spradling) were on their way out. It was a sinking ship. I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now.
-
In order of minutes played:
1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence
What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5). If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.
So this year's team is definitely Frank's team, not oscar's?
-
No I'm asking is a team where at least 3 of the starters will be players recruited by Frank and almost assuredlly at minimum 4 of the top players in minutes played will be players Frank recruited, will it be Weber's team or Frank's? With the fact in mind that we know Weber can win with other coaches players.
A school teacher must schedule seven sessions, which are abbreviated M, N, O, P, S, T, and U, during a day. Seven different consecutive time periods are available for the sessions, and are numbered one through seven in the order that they occur. Only one session can be schedules for each period. The assignment of the sessions to the periods is subject to the following restrictions:
M and O must occupy consecutive periods.
M must be scheduled for an earlier period than U.
O must be scheduled for a later period than S.
If S does not occupy the fourth period, then P must occupy the fourth period.
U and T cannot occupy consecutively numbered periods.
1.Which of the following could be a possible list of the sessions in the order that they are scheduled during the day?
(A) MOPSTNU
(B) NTMSOUP
(C) SMOPTNU
(D) SOMPUTN
(E) STOMPUN
-
In order of minutes played:
1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence
What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5). If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.
So this year's team is definitely Frank's team, not oscar's?
I haven't followed ksu basketball this season, but has the season ended?
-
In order of minutes played:
1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence
What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5). If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.
So this year's team is definitely Frank's team, not oscar's?
I haven't followed ksu basketball this season, but has the season ended?
So you don't believe that at the very least 3 of the starting positions are already set and that at least 4 of the top 8 rotation guys are set?
-
I really don't know because I don't care about ksu basketball. And we'll probably have to wait until the season is over to see who plays.
Regardless, oscar winning or losing is on him. the supposition that he sucks with his players isn't negated because he sucks with other people's players this year.
-
lol
-
I really don't know because I don't care about ksu basketball. And we'll probably have to wait until the season is over to see who plays.
Regardless, oscar winning or losing is on him. the supposition that he sucks with his players isn't negated because he sucks with other people's players this year.
So if he win's this year it's because of him and if he loses it's because of him? Nothing to do with it being Frank's players?
-
what was the reason oscar's first 4 years @Illinois were ridculously worse than his last 4?
-
Groupthink Mob Mentality :runaway:
-
what was the reason oscar's first 4 years @Illinois were ridculously worse than his last 4?
Once again oscar's sucktatudie is on him not the players. So if he loses this years it's because of him and he win's this year it's because of him according to you, nothing to do with Frank?
-
Im enjoying the changing thread titles.
-
jfc, storm, get better at this. Obvs your new. but, act like you've been there before. :Take the Bait:
No point debating what he did in the past. ur not winning that battle. If oscar takes this team to the tourny, #BID goes away. If he doesn't, get ready... it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
-
Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster. He was done. Players (not spradling) were on their way out. It was a sinking ship. I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now.
:lol:
-
I really don't know because I don't care about ksu basketball. And we'll probably have to wait until the season is over to see who plays.
Regardless, oscar winning or losing is on him. the supposition that he sucks with his players isn't negated because he sucks with other people's players this year.
Yeah. I am really at a loss here. Why is quiet storm arguing that oscar can also lose with another coach's players, in addition to his own?
-
Coaches based of the elite factor of non-double figure loss seasons.
Last 11 Season
Self 11
Coach K 10
Dixon 9
Few 9
Calipari 9
Roy Williams 8
Miller 7
Matta 7
Bo Ryan 7
Izzo 6
Donovan 6
Boeheim 6
oscar 5
Pitino 5
Thompson III 5
Huggins 4
Crean 3
Beilien 2
Drew 2
Martin 1 in 6 seasons
Pastern 2 in 4 seasons
Buzz Williams 2 in 5 seasons
-
great debate guys! easy to see why the ksu cats are #1 debate school in all of the land!
-
Im enjoying the changing thread titles.
Yes
-
can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?
so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. :frown:
Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.
:lol:
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
When someone throws you a lob it's hard not to swing.
-
Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster. He was done. Players (not spradling) were on their way out. It was a sinking ship. I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now.
What GPC poster posted this, was it CJH? Nicname, go back and point out to them that the good players on last year's team have shown to still have a relationship with Frank even after he left. I would have you also point out to this person that Frank had players leave every spring and everything turned out fine, but the clown would make some kind of rationalization to make themselves seem right. I'd also point to the players who have left since Frank left and I'd question them on if this revolt would as bad as what happened since Frank left, but I bet this person would not be honest about the impact of the players who have already left under oscar.
-
Im enjoying the changing thread titles.
my favorite part :D
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
Dobbie!
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
When someone throws you a lob it's hard not to swing.
So you're going to swing also by going ahead and stating unequivocally that this years squad is Weber's and if he fails it's all on him and if he has a level of success it's because of him not because it's Frank's players?
-
QS5, how do you know oscar? Neighbors? Coworkers?
-
I was get caught up on this thread but storm's last post just made my head explode.
-
Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster. He was done. Players (not spradling) were on their way out. It was a sinking ship. I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now.
Welp looks like we lost another one to Currie's Propaganda machine.
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
When someone throws you a lob it's hard not to swing.
Fair enough.
-
Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.
When someone throws you a lob it's hard not to swing.
Used to be "hard not to dunk" but boozecats over brucecats.
-
QS5, how do you know oscar? Neighbors? Coworkers?
He's an Illinois tuck that posts as IstillLikeHarv/Illini70math. Came to love oscar more than Illinois basketball. His unicorn. Right color, age, values, brand of basketball, etc. Perfect in everyway except then he got fired and life got flip-turned upside down. He loves oscar, because when he looks at oscar he sees himself. If losery old pud oscar can reach the highest of highs then there's hope for the everyday Bruces out there. The common man Bruces. To see him fail is to see a dream destroyed.
-
While I don't really need know whether to be sad or overjoyed watching the great unwashed fight over the pitifully small remnants left in this thread.
I feel as though I must ask, are their any coaches on that "Interchangeable after #10" Top 40 or 50 coaches list who added numerous "Resume Talking Points" with other coaches players?
"the great unwashed"
I love that part.
-
QS5, how do you know oscar? Neighbors? Coworkers?
He's an Illinois tuck that posts as IstillLikeHarv/Illini70math. Came to love oscar more than Illinois basketball. His unicorn. Right color, age, values, brand of basketball, etc. Perfect in everyway except then he got fired and life got flip-turned upside down. He loves oscar, because when he looks at oscar he sees himself. If losery old pud oscar can reach the highest of highs then there's hope for the everyday Bruces out there. The common man Bruces. To see him fail is to see a dream destroyed.
Wrong Illini fan Fear!
-
I really feel like Illini fans should be disqualifed from this discussion given the overall losery stature of the Illini Athletic department today and pretty much for a long time now.
I just looked at the BiG standings from this fall and last year, and, well, WOOF.
-
If this was a Friday, this thread would be a good basketball coach smack-off.
-
I really feel like Illini fans should be disqualifed from this discussion given the overall losery stature of the Illini Athletic department today and pretty much for a long time now.
I just looked at the BiG standings from this fall and last year, and, well, WOOF.
Yes, all of us EMAWs should move this thread to a Dallas hotel room and isolate ourselves from outside or historical evidence when analyzing this whole coaching thing.
-
I really feel like Illini fans should be disqualifed from this discussion given the overall losery stature of the Illini Athletic department today and pretty much for a long time now.
I just looked at the BiG standings from this fall and last year, and, well, WOOF.
We were good at basketball for a few years there dax, but then oscar. Hope for the future. We have one good year in football every seven or eight years though that seems to be slipping away. It's tough out there.
-
I really feel like Illini fans should be disqualifed from this discussion given the overall losery stature of the Illini Athletic department today and pretty much for a long time now.
I just looked at the BiG standings from this fall and last year, and, well, WOOF.
We were good at basketball for a few years there dax, but then oscar. Hope for the future. We have one good year in football every seven or eight years though that seems to be slipping away. It's tough out there.
I really feel for the true non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) fans of the Breads. I mean, you lost a coach that went on to do really well at another institution. I can't imagine how much worse that would feel than the whole Frank issue. I mean, yeah Frank left but he isn't winning any Natty's anytime soon and rubbing it in my face while I wish he would have stayed and NC'ed at my school.
-
Resident Illini fans have no objectivity when it comes to oscar.
Sorry Bread, reality bro, hang in there, underachievers like the Illini have their day in the sun now and again.
-
Resident Illini fans have no objectivity when it comes to oscar.
Sorry Bread, reality bro, hang in there, underachievers like the Illini have their day in the sun now and again.
do you have objectivity with frank?
-
I really feel like Illini fans should be disqualifed from this discussion given the overall losery stature of the Illini Athletic department today and pretty much for a long time now.
I just looked at the BiG standings from this fall and last year, and, well, WOOF.
We were good at basketball for a few years there dax, but then oscar. Hope for the future. We have one good year in football every seven or eight years though that seems to be slipping away. It's tough out there.
I really feel for the true non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) fans of the Breads. I mean, you lost a coach that went on to do really well at another institution. I can't imagine how much worse that would feel than the whole Frank issue. I mean, yeah Frank left but he isn't winning any Natty's anytime soon and rubbing it in my face while I wish he would have stayed and NC'ed at my school.
I never really thought about Self dominating after he left. I mean it didn't make it worse. If he had failed at Kansas I wouldn't have felt better about what oscar was doing at Illinois. It was always more about why the eff oscar in the first place and then all of his stupid oscar crap and then of course the losing. It was a reactionary safe hire and we got what we deserved for making it.
Until Illinois football gets our own Snyder or Alvarez or even better a Knight or T. Boone we're probably going to be very shitty. It's an incredibly deep hole they're in. I wish that sob Shahid Khan would get off his ass and get all T. Boonesy. Forbes says he's worth $3.8 rough ridin' billion and he spends his money ($760 million) on the Jacksonville Jaguars and some goddamned soccer team (reportedly $200-300 million). Like bro, just give them some of your money and make them do what you want until they're good. He obviously likes sports and being a big deal. Support the alma mater, fucko. :shakesfist:
-
Resident Illini fans have no objectivity when it comes to oscar.
Sorry Bread, reality bro, hang in there, underachievers like the Illini have their day in the sun now and again.
do you have objectivity with frank?
He doesn't have it with oscar.
-
storm I know you got me ONCE on the facts, and you are justly proud of that. But let's get one thing straight here:
When Self's players account for over 68% of the minutes and over 72% of the points scored for that 2006 team, only an idiot would claim that's weber's team.
Can we agree on that? Good.
-
Yeah, Khan is/was a Guenther supporter. He's not going to do a damn thing to help us out, the sob.
-
Until Illinois football gets our own Snyder or Alvarez or even better a Knight or T. Boone we're probably going to be very shitty.
Not to hijack another wonderful thread over here, but why is Illini so rough ridin' terrible at everything. I mean, it's the only University in the State. (Northwestern doesn't count). 2 hours from Chicago. Fball, BBall facilities are nice. Big, populated stated. I mean, jezus, seeing what we are able to produce in the middle of Kansas, it's mind blowing how inept IlliniAD must be. eff.
-
Until Illinois football gets our own Snyder or Alvarez or even better a Knight or T. Boone we're probably going to be very shitty.
Not to hijack another wonderful thread over here, but why is Illini so rough ridin' terrible at everything. I mean, it's the only University in the State. (Northwestern doesn't count). 2 hours from Chicago. Fball, BBall facilities are nice. Big, populated stated. I mean, jezus, seeing what we are able to produce in the middle of Kansas, it's mind blowing how inept IlliniAD must be. eff.
It's a real brain buster. A lot of uninspired, mediocre intelligence losers in positions of authority is an ever-present hurdle. I thought the new AD might be a go-getter, but then he hired Tim Beckman who was a terrible hire by almost any metric. The most damning of which though is that Beckman is a complete fuckface moron and that's evident immediately upon watching the man and hearing him speak. He's just embarrassing on top of being an awful coach. It's all very troubling. Like what would compel you to tie your own career to this man and pay him millions of dollars other than that you must yourself be a total rough ridin' idiot?
-
Is it true Beckman got a 16 on his ACT? That's both hard and not hard to believe.
-
Until Illinois football gets our own Snyder or Alvarez or even better a Knight or T. Boone we're probably going to be very shitty.
Not to hijack another wonderful thread over here, but why is Illini so rough ridin' terrible at everything. I mean, it's the only University in the State. (Northwestern doesn't count). 2 hours from Chicago. Fball, BBall facilities are nice. Big, populated stated. I mean, jezus, seeing what we are able to produce in the middle of Kansas, it's mind blowing how inept IlliniAD must be. eff.
It's a real brain buster. A lot of uninspired, mediocre intelligence losers in positions of authority is an ever-present hurdle. I thought the new AD might be a go-getter, but then he hired Tim Beckman who was a terrible hire by almost any metric. The most damning of which though is that Beckman is a complete fuckface moron and that's evident immediately upon watching the man and hearing him speak. He's just embarrassing on top of being an awful coach. It's all very troubling. Like what would compel you to tie your own career to this man and pay him millions of dollars other than that you must yourself be a total rough ridin' idiot?
At least Groce will do what it takes to get recruits. Weber's biggest fault.
-
Editors note:
In my rather lengthy thought provoking post on page 7 of this thread, I posted incorrectly that James Augustine was drafted 41st in 2005. In actuality he was drafted 41st in 2006 (with Dee Brown).
I would recommend that oscar Weber focus on recruiting more 4 and 5 star recruits like Bill Self and that he quit recruiting out of High School Military Academies. These 4 and 5 star recruits always score the most on oscar teams except for Big Men. oscar doesn't believe in height advantages.
-
Resident Illini fans have no objectivity when it comes to oscar.
Sorry Bread, reality bro, hang in there, underachievers like the Illini have their day in the sun now and again.
do you have objectivity with frank?
He doesn't have it with oscar.
well, this was the endgame, maybe a spoiler alert next time bread. sheesh.
-
Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster. He was done. Players (not spradling) were on their way out. It was a sinking ship. I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now.
What GPC poster posted this, was it CJH? Nicname, go back and point out to them that the good players on last year's team have shown to still have a relationship with Frank even after he left. I would have you also point out to this person that Frank had players leave every spring and everything turned out fine, but the clown would make some kind of rationalization to make themselves seem right. I'd also point to the players who have left since Frank left and I'd question them on if this revolt would as bad as what happened since Frank left, but I bet this person would not be honest about the impact of the players who have already left under oscar.
I dunno man, this guy worked closely with Frank and oscar and has had close relationships with players as well (not media stuff). If I remember correctly he still has a good relationship with Frank. He doesn't fall on the dishonest side, and when I originally posed the question my angle was much the same as yours and I was surprised at his answer. Like I said, it is just what I believe. That, plus Frank's relationship with Currie that, at least as far as you and I can tell, wasn't rosy, wouldn't have been good.
This was just in a random conversation earlier this fall, btw.
Frank is cool and was cool, I hope he and Unds do great at USC. I think he is cooler and made EMAW hoops more fun than oscar probably will be able to, if only for his personality and star quality. I didn't want him to leave, but now, I think it was probably the best thing for both Frank and K-State under the current administration. That's all, man.
-
Well nicname, based on the fact that you didn't know Unds is a head coach at Stephen F. Austin, it's pretty tough to believe what you have to say about our basketball program.
-
Well nicname, based on the fact that you didn't know Unds is a head coach at Stephen F. Austin, it's pretty tough to believe what you have to say about our basketball program.
This ^^
-
I agree with Nicname's take, jmo.
-
If Currie would have worked out a truce with Frank, we'd be better off today than we are. If you really think Frank would have been a disaster and run the program into the ground, at least we could have fired him and started over. Also, if you spearhead the most sustained success in a program that it's had in 30 years, you probably deserve a grace period to eff up and try again. No matter what, those options are better than having room temperature milk as your coach.
-
Well nicname, based on the fact that you didn't know Unds is a head coach at Stephen F. Austin, it's pretty tough to believe what you have to say about our basketball program.
I'll accept the egg on my face for that one. Still, my lack of homework on Underwood's coaching career before my post doesn't make what I heard any less believable.
-
my lack of homework on Underwood's coaching career before my post doesn't make what I heard any less believable.
that's true.
-
I agree with Nicname's take, jmo.
I agree with the second post, everyone does. The first post mentioned a mass exodus, the second post took a different direction. You can ignore all the other evidence, like those guys working out at USC this past summer instead of K-State, and just listen to Weber. He mentions all of the time about how hard he had to work to re-recruit the core of the team. If they were going to leave if Frank stayed why did they need convincing to stay after he left? The only player we knew for sure who was going to leave was Sprads, Nino was an obvious candidate to join him and I wouldn't be surprised if Shane thought about it, but that core 4 weren't going anywhere and we know that.
As far as Nicname's second post goes, it was very obvious that Frank's and Currie's relationship had deteriorated to the point where it was effecting the program and it was a one of these guys had to go situation. The Jamar suspension wasn't about Jamar at all it was Currie flexing.
-
If there was going to be a player revolt and the players hated Frank or his coaching style, then the players should have already come out and said this. They especially should have said something when Team Burn It Down arrived on the scene and the atmosphere in the Octagon formerly of Paint sucked ass all year long. If I hated a coach and transferred because of him, I would happily tell people that he is a jerk.
Now we are just about to start the 2nd basketball season without Frank and we can't even get past whether Frank was going to actually start sucking or not.
Let Me Shout This
FRANK MARTIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT oscar WEBER IS A BAD HIRE!!!!!!!
We can argue about Frank if we want to but oscar is the issue that we are currently dealing with.
-
I can multitask.
-
:popcorn:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2F2ah6qo5.jpg&hash=4555184d864ede24641e4f89f35d938b44f65fd3)
-
so i'll drop this little nugget in here about something i heard from someone who i trust and would know. the night before the syracuse game, jamie vaughn and currie told jamar that he wasn't going to be able to play. they then went to franks hotel room and told frank. frank was beyond furious (mostly because they bypassed him and told jamar first). he went at currie physically and had to be restrained by other people in the room. that was the straw as far as both of them were concerned. frank decided to probably go somewhere else because of it and currie decided to let him. there was no attempt to keep frank.
-
If accurate, I am actually impressed JC told Frank face to face
-
If accurate, I am actually impressed JC told Frank face to tried to smash Currie's face
-
so i'll drop this little nugget in here about something i heard from someone who i trust and would know. the night before the syracuse game, jamie vaughn and currie told jamar that he wasn't going to be able to play. they then went to franks hotel room and told frank. frank was beyond furious (mostly because they bypassed him and told jamar first). he went at currie physically and had to be restrained by other people in the room. that was the straw as far as both of them were concerned. frank decided to probably go somewhere else because of it and currie decided to let him. there was no attempt to keep frank.
:thumbs:
-
Would have loved if they both got in a few good shots on each other and both were on camera during the game the next day with black eyes and busted noses.
-
Would have loved if they both got in a few good shots on each other and both were on camera during the game the next day with black eyes and busted noses.
just think of the incredibly oversized sunglasses JC would be wearing