goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: kso_FAN on February 22, 2017, 10:43:54 PM

Title: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 22, 2017, 10:43:54 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170223/7d314ef2d172722276ee7527a84916a8.jpg)

Our loss.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pissclams on February 22, 2017, 10:46:27 PM
i'm always late to the party.  really didn't think he'd turn out to be the caliber of coach that he is.  it's a limited sample size but all evidence points to him being legit.  good for him
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 22, 2017, 10:47:55 PM
Yeah. I wanted so badly for him to be our coach last March.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2017, 10:49:45 PM
There were more then enough data points to suggest he would be better then a known loser.  More then enough to take that 3 year risk.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pvegs on February 22, 2017, 10:51:44 PM
i'm always late to the party.  really didn't think he'd turn out to be the caliber of coach that he is.  it's a limited sample size but all evidence points to him being legit.  good for him

good pt. after he won 90 games in 3 seasons and beat huggy as a 14 i was still unconvinced, bc non-power 5/who knows circumstances. egg on our faces, clams!
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pissclams on February 22, 2017, 10:53:50 PM
There were more then enough data points to suggest he would be better then a known loser.  More then enough to take that 3 year risk.  Oh well.

it wasn't an issue of risk.  the problem for currie, last year, was timing.  we could not fire oscar after giving him the rebuild green light.  if brad was available now there's no doubt in my mind that currie would attempt to hire him.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: renocat on February 22, 2017, 11:00:03 PM
A good coach helps his team get better.  OKstate is way better than at the start of conference play.  Juxtapose that to Oscar's downhill trajectory.  If we were a ski team, we would be settling speed recordS.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Ptolemy on February 22, 2017, 11:05:42 PM
it wasn't an issue of risk.  the problem for currie, last year, was timing.  we could not fire oscar after giving him the rebuild green light.  if brad was available now there's no doubt in my mind that currie would attempt to hire him.

Kind of like West Virginia when Beilein left...
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2017, 11:08:31 PM
There were more then enough data points to suggest he would be better then a known loser.  More then enough to take that 3 year risk.  Oh well.

it wasn't an issue of risk.  the problem for currie, last year, was timing.  we could not fire oscar after giving him the rebuild green light.  if brad was available now there's no doubt in my mind that currie would attempt to hire him.
I'm not sure how much I can go along with this green light stuff.  oscar lead a slander campaign for half a conference season to run him (marcus) so that was the only thing the AD could allow.  Timing was there when he stumbled hard last with his guys.  You have a guy who is following his same career path that got him fired to a T and *you* expect something different?  Nah, you have a hot coach with amazeballs connections to you, wants to come, you take that splash and fire your loser for a potential winner.  All you have done is risked the program being in the spot it is right now.  No good options.  This is like releasing a free agent.  Better a year too early then a year too late.  Now we're looking at maybe 2 years too late.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 08:50:09 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 08:51:58 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.

Brad is a K-State alum, so most of the people who really matter would have loved the hire.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 08:57:39 AM
I remember that time like it was yesterday and many wanted a home run hire. Were you cheering for that hire at that time or were you cheering for some former college pg/ talk show host?
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 08:58:30 AM
I remember that time like it was yesterday and many wanted a home run hire. Were you cheering for that hire at that time or were you cheering for some former college pg/ talk show host?

I was pulling hard for Antigua, but would have been happy with Brad.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: The Whale on February 23, 2017, 09:04:17 AM
Brad was above the Burn It Down line, wasn't he?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 23, 2017, 09:08:00 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.

I was all for hiring Brad at the time.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 09:13:23 AM
It's sort of like how during this football search, I hope we can do better than Leavitt, but I'd be fine with him in the end and anyone we get who is clearly worse at the time of hire is completely unacceptable.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
Leavitt does not equal Brad that time. That's all i'm saying. He was an unproven assistant coach, who had a .500 coaching record at Dodge city CC as a head coach.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 09:18:38 AM
Yeah, Dimel is a better comparison. I'd be ok with Dimel, too, if we tried to get better coaches and they turned us down first.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 23, 2017, 09:20:09 AM
Leavitt does not equal Brad that time. That's all i'm saying. He was an unproven assistant coach, who had a .500 coaching record at Dodge city CC as a head coach.

At that point I was pretty much "taking a flyer on Frank worked, why not Brad?". Plus Brad had been part of the program for multiple years and was a K-Stater. I would have absolutely been fine with taking that shot, especially considering who we ended up hiring. Currie could have hired Brad for 750K a year max. Fans would have been fine with it too, especially with the corp of player Brad was inheriting.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ChiComCat on February 23, 2017, 09:30:56 AM
Brad was the least acceptable candidate for me.  I don't mean the worst, but just that I saw him as the worst one that I would've been on board with.  oscar was unacceptable.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kslim on February 23, 2017, 09:38:04 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on February 23, 2017, 09:43:38 AM
Brad was the least acceptable candidate for me.  I don't mean the worst, but just that I saw him as the worst one that I would've been on board with.  oscar was unacceptable.

agree with this and what _fan has said. I would have been ok with it.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 23, 2017, 09:48:31 AM
Leavitt does not equal Brad that time. That's all i'm saying. He was an unproven assistant coach, who had a .500 coaching record at Dodge city CC as a head coach.

At that point I was pretty much "taking a flyer on Frank worked, why not Brad?". Plus Brad had been part of the program for multiple years and was a K-Stater. I would have absolutely been fine with taking that shot, especially considering who we ended up hiring. Currie could have hired Brad for 750K a year max. Fans would have been fine with it too, especially with the corp of player Brad was inheriting.

do you still have that "at least ask if not then (BRADS FACE)" gif lying around anywhere?
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 09:48:52 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)
Obvi. I just think hiring an unproven assistant is boring. I had no clue we'd end up with oscar tho.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: catastrophe on February 23, 2017, 09:53:18 AM
I would not have been jazzed about Brad, but I wasn't jazzed about Frank either. Basically, I don't know crap about up and coming coaches.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 23, 2017, 10:10:06 AM
I would not have been jazzed about Brad, but I wasn't jazzed about Frank either. Basically, I don't know crap about up and coming coaches.

and that's ok because you aren't paid by the university to know such things.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 23, 2017, 10:11:29 AM
do you still have that "at least ask if not then (BRADS FACE)" gif lying around anywhere?

I can only find these sad memories.

This was from exactly one year ago today:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FBBB.png&hash=e7f7044db77b06f2ce334365d185855368e919e8)

Then these:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2Fbringbackbrad.gif&hash=ac166c65cd3425ada38531a0c1d6c47a22b8f2c6)

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2Fbringbackbrad2.gif&hash=b26deda86ae7371dc3bfaf728089fe2dd783dc84)
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Cire on February 23, 2017, 10:19:54 AM
SAD!
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: DQ12 on February 23, 2017, 10:27:41 AM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for. 
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kslim on February 23, 2017, 10:35:50 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)
Obvi. I just think hiring an unproven assistant is boring. I had no clue we'd end up with oscar tho.
so you would rather hire a known loser than take a chance on an unknown because that is boring?
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2017, 10:43:00 AM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.
This

If anything you've wasted maybe 3 years, found out he didn't have it and you can move onto your next retread, safe, NY Jets type of coach.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 10:47:54 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)
Obvi. I just think hiring an unproven assistant is boring. I had no clue we'd end up with oscar tho.
so you would rather hire a known loser than take a chance on an unknown because that is boring?
No. I just said that. I didn't know we were going to hire oscar.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: deputy dawg on February 23, 2017, 10:51:15 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)

Well, we sure kicked Charlotte's ass (was that the program that was set to hire Oscar before we snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory?)
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kslim on February 23, 2017, 10:53:22 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)
Obvi. I just think hiring an unproven assistant is boring. I had no clue we'd end up with oscar tho.
so you would rather hire a known loser than take a chance on an unknown because that is boring?
No. I just said that. I didn't know we were going to hire oscar.
im not talking about brad and oscar anymore, im speaking in general
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Trim on February 23, 2017, 10:55:53 AM
We should have hired Brad when Frank left. There is nothing wrong with hiring from within a successful basketball program. oscar is the kind of coach programs hire after somebody gets fired and leaves the program in shambles.
I hate this logic. Plenty of ppl would have been dissatisfied with that as well. Many are saying this now because of what he became.
but nobody wanted oscar to begin with, we knew what we were getting (a loser)

Well, we sure kicked Charlotte's ass (was that the program that was set to hire Oscar before we snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory?)

Nope, Charleston (college of). 
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 23, 2017, 10:56:58 AM
I would have preferred an up and comer at the mid major level vs. brad, but obviously not now. I would have liked to think we could have stolen a successful P5 coach, that didn't just get fired, but what do I know. I figure there had to be some coaches out there that would have liked to get a raise by coming to K-State and taking over a stacked roster. Those were my thoughts at the time.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: #LIFE on February 23, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
Quote
The love fest for Brad Underwood, IMHO, is based on emotion and not sound judgment. There simply is not enough evidence for a verdict. If oscar Weber had Evans as a guard, I bet K-State is fighting for a Big XII Championship at this very moment. Brad needs to prove himself for a while before I would feel good about his hire.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: MakeItRain on February 23, 2017, 06:49:50 PM
Quote
The love fest for Brad Underwood, IMHO, is based on emotion and not sound judgment. There simply is not enough evidence for a verdict. If oscar Weber had Evans as a guard, I bet K-State is fighting for a Big XII Championship at this very moment. Brad needs to prove himself for a while before I would feel good about his hire.

The stuff about Brad is kinda accurate,  :ROFL: at thinking oscar would be in championship contention with Evans though, he had his Evans already.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pvegs on February 23, 2017, 07:11:18 PM
i was all for brad in 2012. he certainly excited me more than the initial murmurs of tad boyle and the hemorrhoids.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: nicname on February 23, 2017, 07:28:53 PM
Not hiring Underwood when Frank left is probably more reasonable than hiring him.

Not trying to hire Underwood after Weber turned a recently solid program into a dumpster fire is a fireable offense.

We never should have hired Weber so quickly though.

Title: Going Under...
Post by: catastrophe on February 23, 2017, 08:00:04 PM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

Agreed. For me, this is by far the biggest indictment on Currie's judgment.

If we end up hiring a boring FB coach and find out Currie didn't even talk to Venables, he should be gone.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: #LIFE on February 23, 2017, 08:25:25 PM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

Agreed. For me, this is by far the biggest indictment on Currie's judgment.

If we end up hiring a boring FB coach and find out Currie didn't even talk to Venables, he should be gone.

Should we give him that chance to screw it up though?
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: michigancat on February 23, 2017, 09:22:51 PM
I was more angry about hiring oscar than not hiring Brad last year
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: 'taterblast on February 23, 2017, 09:29:42 PM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

it was such an easy and perfect decision for him to make. even if underwood ended up failing spectacularly no one would have blamed currie for hiring him at all.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: #LIFE on February 23, 2017, 09:45:38 PM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

it was such an easy and perfect decision for him to make. even if underwood ended up failing spectacularly no one would have blamed currie for hiring him at all.

I said this last year. He could have set a can out and we would have covered loser's buyout in an hour. Brad would have had 99% of the fanbase behind him. If it didn't work out we wouldn't be in any worse shape than we are now. And those of us that have met and been around Brad know there was like a 5% chance of him not getting the job done here. Currie goes out and gets him last year he's probably the hottest AD commodity in the country a year or two from now. But, ego, sportsmanship, etc.  :shooturmouth:
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Trim on February 23, 2017, 09:48:38 PM
Currie couldn't have gotten Brad.  And even if he could've, michigancat is right about what was more egregious.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: sys on February 23, 2017, 10:02:19 PM
Currie couldn't have gotten Brad.  And even if he could've, michigancat is right about what was more egregious.

oh, i don't agree at all.  in terms of egregious currie decisions, i'd put it at like:

1.  running off martin.
2.  not hiring underwood in 2016.

all sorts of other crap.

99.  hiring weber.

Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: michigancat on February 23, 2017, 10:24:47 PM
I guess I connect #1 too closely with #99
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Trim on February 23, 2017, 10:29:15 PM
#1 & #99 precluded #2 from ever being an option, so of course they're more egregious.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: CatMission on February 23, 2017, 11:09:45 PM
Just #1 precluded #2 from happening. Brad is 100% TeamFrank and the way things evolved and ended between Currie and Frank was so bad, I'm not sure Brad would ever come home with Currie in charge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Ptolemy on February 23, 2017, 11:50:19 PM
 Someone on here  articulated this first, but it bears repeating...if I got a terminal diagnosis of 6 months tomorrow I would run over Currie and Oscar in the street with my car. I'm confident that God would forgive the whole murder thing because I would have been acting for the good of KStaters for the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 24, 2017, 12:06:23 AM
I was more angry about hiring oscar than not hiring Brad last year
I totally disagree with this.  After oscar's first couple year we had people fooled into believing he could be breaking his trends. oscar was a bad pick.  The worse thing though, was not firing him for being a loser when you have a proven winner ready to take over. oscar's hire was a C-  unimaginative, retread, with no future.  Keeping him was an F and should cost someone a job.  Hiring Brad last year would have been a solid B at worst.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: DQ12 on February 24, 2017, 07:39:36 AM
Brad would have taken the job you weirdos.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: catastrophe on February 24, 2017, 07:41:45 AM
sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

Agreed. For me, this is by far the biggest indictment on Currie's judgment.

If we end up hiring a boring FB coach and find out Currie didn't even talk to Venables, he should be gone.

Should we give him that chance to screw it up though?

First, I think it's dumb to assume that we could get a better overall AD. I have also said several times that just because Currie went "safe" with BBall doesn't mean he would do the same in the major revenue generating sport.

This is a guy who prides himself (and rightfully so) on the profitability of the athletic department. If we dip below expectations in FB, I don't see it staying that way.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: deputy dawg on February 24, 2017, 08:08:01 AM
I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 24, 2017, 01:09:54 PM
I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pissclams on February 24, 2017, 01:14:54 PM
I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard. 
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kslim on February 24, 2017, 02:16:53 PM
I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard.
mittie has been okay so i would rate that a 3. he gets -2 for how he handled deb and the woman that wanted to transfer but overall i think he did a good job there

oscar is a 1 its that simple, not only should he have been destroyed for pushing frank out he brought in a proven loser

asst football coaches overall would be a 3, time will tell with guys like collin and whatnot but most jobs are yada yada so we might not even know how well they coached under snyds

Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on February 24, 2017, 02:27:04 PM
I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard.

mittie gets a 3.5 from me. weber gets a 1.

I can imagine the first time AD/frank martin thing, but I have a hard time brushing off the fact that currie seemed to be instigating a decent portion of it himself. I'm pretty sure he talked to frank all the time about frank cursing, I'm pretty sure he actively tried to get curt Kelly off the team, I'm pretty sure he suspended samuels before one of our biggest games ever without needing to and told samuels about it before he told martin. those aren't really just the acts of a rookie trying to do his best to manage a personality.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: #LIFE on February 24, 2017, 02:40:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf7lG7FRgXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf7lG7FRgXI)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQsF72isMFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQsF72isMFI)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szq7cxjqUDU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szq7cxjqUDU)

FYJC
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: sys on February 24, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
i'm happy to acknowledge that martin is difficult.  nonetheless, walking into a bball program experiencing it's best run in 20 years with a popular coach and then having an alum coach be among the hottest coaching candidates in the country four years into your new coach's relatively unpopular and unsuccessful tenure are both situations that are a lot harder to eff up than not eff up.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Trim on February 24, 2017, 02:58:13 PM
FYJC&KS.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: catastrophe on February 24, 2017, 03:31:35 PM

I can imagine the first time AD/frank martin thing, but I have a hard time brushing off the fact that currie seemed to be instigating a decent portion of it himself. I'm pretty sure he talked to frank all the time about frank cursing, I'm pretty sure he actively tried to get curt Kelly off the team, I'm pretty sure he suspended samuels before one of our biggest games ever without needing to and told samuels about it before he told martin. those aren't really just the acts of a rookie trying to do his best to manage a personality.

We have video evidence of oscar's potty mouth.  Why not just send that to Currie and force him to take action?  I mean, it is no wonder where the student section gets it from.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pissclams on February 24, 2017, 05:04:31 PM
there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: nicname on February 24, 2017, 05:49:10 PM
i'm happy to acknowledge that martin is difficult.  nonetheless, walking into a bball program experiencing it's best run in 20 years with a popular coach and then having an alum coach be among the hottest coaching candidates in the country four years into your new coach's relatively unpopular and unsuccessful tenure are both situations that are a lot harder to eff up than not eff up.

#CaseClosed
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: kso_FAN on February 24, 2017, 06:04:54 PM
there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

I tend to agree with this.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: slackcat on February 24, 2017, 06:19:33 PM
Miss Frank soooo much.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Xl7IS4m9Y[/youtube]


Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Trim on February 24, 2017, 07:12:05 PM
4:49
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 24, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Currie has shown no indication that he's learned any lessons. From all accounts, his relationship with our HOF football coach is non-existent, and the ol' codger is beating cancer just so Currie can't pick the next coach. Sounds like he's still an insecure loser. I'd welcome him to prove me wrong. I really just want good results. I can live with an annoying AD, I can't live with a bad one though.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on February 24, 2017, 10:17:42 PM
there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

Mostly agree. looking back on it, they were both probably a little insecure. Also I gave mittie a 3.5 on a 0-5 scale. That's like really good considering that it's his third year and he has a below .500 conference winning percentage. I mean seriously. 3.5 on a 0-5 is a full point above average.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 25, 2017, 12:07:32 PM
4:49
that 3 part split shows exactly the difference in programs
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 25, 2017, 01:12:31 PM
Quote
The love fest for Brad Underwood, IMHO, is based on emotion and not sound judgment. There simply is not enough evidence for a verdict. If oscar Weber had Evans as a guard, I bet K-State is fighting for a Big XII Championship at this very moment. Brad needs to prove himself for a while before I would feel good about his hire.

Yeah, it's too early to know how good of a coach and recruiter Brad will be at OKSt. We all knew Ford was a joke of a coach his entire B12 tenure, he just got a couple really talented players that delayed his firing. Ok St did bring back 4 starters. 1 of those starters (Evans) missed the final 10 B12 games last year. They also brought back Forte after being injured last season.  And there is a possibility that Brad will lose his 4 best players if Carroll decides to turn pro.  But starting 0-6 and being able to rally his team is a good job for a 1st year coach.

Kstate would not be challenging Ku/Baylor for the league title if they had Evans. He'd make us a lot better, but more like top 4 not top 2 potential finish.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pvegs on February 25, 2017, 01:22:38 PM
in retrospect that jamar receipt crap was truly absurd. what actually happened? i wasn't as plugged in to the online emaw community then.
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: pissclams on February 25, 2017, 01:48:06 PM
there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

Mostly agree. looking back on it, they were both probably a little insecure. Also I gave mittie a 3.5 on a 0-5 scale. That's like really good considering that it's his third year and he has a below .500 conference winning percentage. I mean seriously. 3.5 on a 0-5 is a full point above average.
good point on mittie's percentage

point, daris
Title: Re: Going Under...
Post by: ednksu on February 25, 2017, 02:32:07 PM
in retrospect that jamar receipt crap was truly absurd. what actually happened? i wasn't as plugged in to the online emaw community then.
His former AAU coach, and 2nd dad since like age 12, sent him a few bones.  The rules have a clear exception to get gifts from people you had a prior relationship with so your family, or, in this case, a mentor can give you something and it not be an issue.  JC went full ham and ignored that.  If I recall correctly Jam Sam was suspended pending the "investigation" which was the last game.  If we had won I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened.  Because we were done it became moot.