Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 05:57:04 PM
Basically saying Frank couldn't coach offense, and oscar and Chris can.
Illinois had the 11th best offense in the Big 10, SIU had the 9th best in the Valley. These guys are awful.
Post by: OlatheWildcat on April 09, 2012, 05:59:22 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 06:02:25 PM
Not wanting to be a oscar defender, but Frank couldn't really coach offense.
Frank's offensive efficiency was better than oscar's 4 out of 5 years.
Post by: OlatheWildcat on April 09, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 06:08:20 PM
Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?
you can look it up on kenpom or statsheet.
Post by: OlatheWildcat on April 09, 2012, 06:16:36 PM
Martin= 112.6
Touche again.
Post by: WildCatzPhreak on April 09, 2012, 06:27:56 PM
Post by: catzacker on April 09, 2012, 06:30:46 PM
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 06:31:45 PM
Two questions: Is offensive efficiency measured on a possession by possession basis? And does a possession start over when a team gets an offensive rebound?
offensive efficiency is points per possession. the possession does not start over when there is an offensive rebound (or a foul). Possessions only end w/ a made basket, defensive rebound, or turnover.
Post by: WildCatzPhreak on April 09, 2012, 06:33:40 PM
thanks. that explains a lot.Two questions: Is offensive efficiency measured on a possession by possession basis? And does a possession start over when a team gets an offensive rebound?
offensive efficiency is points per possession. the possession does not start over when there is an offensive rebound (or a foul). Possessions only end w/ a made basket, defensive rebound, or turnover.
Post by: wetwillie on April 09, 2012, 06:34:10 PM
Post by: chemhawk on April 09, 2012, 06:37:34 PM
I'm more offended that he didn't say our defense was rough ridin' fantastic, because it was.
This.
Teams did fear the physicality of Martin's Cats. Mizzou is still dealing with the vaginal tearing due to the lack of lube.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2012, 06:38:26 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
Post by: pissclams on April 09, 2012, 06:41:36 PM
Regardless. Frank had to defer to underwood's rough ridin' pinwheel.Not wanting to be a oscar defender, but Frank couldn't really coach offense.
Frank's offensive efficiency was better than oscar's 4 out of 5 years.
Post by: catzacker on April 09, 2012, 06:48:04 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
great. you got disassociated with the university. you f'ing changed the world, Dax. changed it. if you died right now or right before you got your disassociation badge of honor, nothing at ksu would be different.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
great. you got disassociated with the university. you f'ing changed the world, Dax. changed it. if you died right now or right before you got your disassociation badge of honor, nothing at ksu would be different.
Already beaten down by the man.
Sad
Post by: chum1 on April 09, 2012, 06:54:38 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 06:56:13 PM
Regardless. Frank had to defer to underwood's rough ridin' pinwheel.Not wanting to be a oscar defender, but Frank couldn't really coach offense.
Frank's offensive efficiency was better than oscar's 4 out of 5 years.
regardless. PPP.
Post by: laughingatlowery on April 09, 2012, 07:27:15 PM
So this guy Lowery comes on and is like, "these guys are OK on defense, it's our job to get them easy buckets that they weren't getting last year."
Basically saying Frank couldn't coach offense, and oscar and Chris can.
Illinois had the 11th best offense in the Big 10, SIU had the 9th best in the Valley. These guys are awful.
Your defense will never be good enough. Just be lucly that BAM will be doing the post game interviews because C-Lo(wn) will throw everyone from the starters to the towel boy under the bus, and instruct the bus driver to back up and run over them again. :runaway:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2012, 07:38:56 PM
So this guy Lowery comes on and is like, "these guys are OK on defense, it's our job to get them easy buckets that they weren't getting last year."
Basically saying Frank couldn't coach offense, and oscar and Chris can.
Illinois had the 11th best offense in the Big 10, SIU had the 9th best in the Valley. These guys are awful.
Your defense will never be good enough. Just be lucly that BAM will be doing the post game interviews because C-Lo(wn) will throw everyone from the starters to the towel boy under the bus, and instruct the bus driver to back up and run over them again. :runaway:
Illini fans are pretty one dimensional when it comes to their criticism of Weber etc. etc. We're going to need some better effort because this is getting boring.
Post by: catzacker on April 09, 2012, 07:41:55 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
great. you got disassociated with the university. you f'ing changed the world, Dax. changed it. if you died right now or right before you got your disassociation badge of honor, nothing at ksu would be different.
Already beaten down by the man.
Sad
you changed the world, dax. mother theresa, martin luther king, and dax.
remember to drink lots of water, the mouth breathing can make for terrible cotton mouth.
Post by: JavaCat on April 09, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2012, 07:46:02 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
great. you got disassociated with the university. you f'ing changed the world, Dax. changed it. if you died right now or right before you got your disassociation badge of honor, nothing at ksu would be different.
Already beaten down by the man.
Sad
you changed the world, dax. mother theresa, martin luther king, and dax.
remember to drink lots of water, the mouth breathing can make for terrible cotton mouth.
No need to lash back at the truth zacker.
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 08:14:11 PM
I'd say Frank threw his players under the bus a lot. He won though so nobody really cared except for some tucks. The new coaches can back that bus up as many times as they want as long as they win more often than not.
The difference is Frank didn't get fired for performance. I will excuse any and all questionable behavior if the end result is wins. Conversely, I will nitpick like the Dickens if we lose. I think it's my right.
Post by: Kat Kid on April 09, 2012, 08:24:04 PM
I'd say Frank threw his players under the bus a lot. He won though so nobody really cared except for some tucks. The new coaches can back that bus up as many times as they want as long as they win more often than not.
The difference is Frank didn't get fired for performance. I will excuse any and all questionable behavior if the end result is wins. Conversely, I will nitpick like the Dickens if we lose. I think it's my right.
I will write up Kafka-esque haikus about Weber if we suck.
Post by: Super PurpleCat on April 09, 2012, 08:29:59 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 08:36:26 PM
Weber= 111.6
Martin= 112.6
Touche again.
I'm guessing big 10 teams in general average fewer ppp than Big 12 teams. Seems like a better conference defensively (and offensively and overall) .
But that's not really the point of this perpetual bitch fest so lets focus on every negative and psychoanalyze every interview in hopes of persuading the entire fanbase that Franks crap show of an offense was slightly more efficient to the tune of <1 per game.
:emawkid:
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 08:46:30 PM
Weber= 111.6
Martin= 112.6
Touche again.
I'm guessing big 10 teams in general average fewer ppp than Big 12 teams. Seems like a better conference defensively (and offensively and overall) .
But that's not really the point of this perpetual bitch fest so lets focus on every negative and psychoanalyze every interview in hopes of persuading the entire fanbase that Franks crap show of an offense was slightly more efficient to the tune of <1 per game.
:emawkid:
I was quoting adjusted efficiency, which accounts for defensive strength, dumbass.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 09, 2012, 08:52:03 PM
I'd say Frank threw his players under the bus a lot. He won though so nobody really cared except for some tucks. The new coaches can back that bus up as many times as they want as long as they win more often than not.
Don't know what your definition of throwing players under the bus is, but if someone asked what happened on that play and a coach answers the question honestly that isn't throwing anyone under the bus it is telling what happened on the play. Frank rarely did this and I don't right now recall Frank calling out someone out by name ever.
If you're 20 and can't handle someone saying you forgot to set a cross screen then you likely don't have the proper mindset to be a a college basketball player for a top 25 program.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 08:59:33 PM
Weber= 111.6
Martin= 112.6
Touche again.
I'm guessing big 10 teams in general average fewer ppp than Big 12 teams. Seems like a better conference defensively (and offensively and overall) .
But that's not really the point of this perpetual bitch fest so lets focus on every negative and psychoanalyze every interview in hopes of persuading the entire fanbase that Franks crap show of an offense was slightly more efficient to the tune of <1 per game.
:emawkid:
I was quoting adjusted efficiency, which accounts for defensive strength, dumbass.
You didn't quote anything Dumbass. Stop being so butthurt over Frank's baby fit
Post by: unleashthemob on April 09, 2012, 09:07:43 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 09:14:48 PM
Weber= 111.6
Martin= 112.6
Touche again.
I'm guessing big 10 teams in general average fewer ppp than Big 12 teams. Seems like a better conference defensively (and offensively and overall) .
But that's not really the point of this perpetual bitch fest so lets focus on every negative and psychoanalyze every interview in hopes of persuading the entire fanbase that Franks crap show of an offense was slightly more efficient to the tune of <1 per game.
:emawkid:
I was quoting adjusted efficiency, which accounts for defensive strength, dumbass.
You didn't quote anything Dumbass. Stop being so butthurt over Frank's baby fit
I was using kenpom adjusted O in the original post. Have you heard of kenpom?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 09:23:06 PM
The new staff isn't gonna come in and say, hey the team is in great shape, and psuedo-statistically speaking, based on a five year look back, as a staff we are incapable of improving this this 6th place big 12 team, so we quit.
Sheesh, such a whiny little bitch.
Post by: Cire on April 09, 2012, 09:36:59 PM
Were so mumped! can't wait till I can tell people " see I told you so"
Will be like xmas
Post by: Kat Kid on April 09, 2012, 10:03:59 PM
Post by: JimmyChitwood on April 09, 2012, 10:26:36 PM
Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?Illinois had 9 top 100 players on the roster last year. (Thanks to Jerrance Howard). Weberized gang......Weberized.
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 10:36:04 PM
Hey michicat, frank isn't coming back. Find one available (no show cause) hc who's efficiency numbers are better than BW s and get back to us.
LOL, way to change the subject. But how about Larry Eustachy and Josh Pastner? Randy Bennett? And those are just three off the top of my head that would have been attainable for K-State.
The new staff isn't gonna come in and say, hey the team is in great shape, and psuedo-statistically speaking, based on a five year look back, as a staff we are incapable of improving this this 6th place big 12 team, so we quit.
There are plenty of things they could have said without sounding like delusional dumbasses who think they did nothing wrong when they both GOT FIRED FOR LOSING. These guys seriously think (or at least act like) the previous staff had no clue what they're doing. In doing so, they're setting themselves up to go down the same losing path that GOT THEM BOTH FIRED.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 10:37:39 PM
My favorite part of fake sugar dick's posts are when he wanders in to a conversation, lets everyone know he doesn't know what he's talking about and then doubles down with name calling when someone alerts him that the adults are talking. No apologies, no listening, just restating the same thing with various levels of name calling.
What's your least favorite part, dork?
Stat guys who don't understand stats are bad, their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Internet "back" is even worse
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 10:38:40 PM
Stat guys who don't understand stats are bad, their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Internet "back" is even worse
lol wut
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 10:43:21 PM
Hey michicat, frank isn't coming back. Find one available (no show cause) hc who's efficiency numbers are better than BW s and get back to us.
LOL, way to change the subject. But how about Larry Eustachy and Josh Pastner? Randy Bennett? And those are just three off the top of my head that would have been attainable for K-State.The new staff isn't gonna come in and say, hey the team is in great shape, and psuedo-statistically speaking, based on a five year look back, as a staff we are incapable of improving this this 6th place big 12 team, so we quit.
There are plenty of things they could have said without sounding like delusional dumbasses who think they did nothing wrong when they both GOT FIRED FOR LOSING. These guys seriously think (or at least act like) the previous staff had no clue what they're doing. In doing so, they're setting themselves up to go down the same losing path that GOT THEM BOTH FIRED.
Chris, where are some areas k-state can improve?
Michicat acceptable answer: Sorry, I am pseudo-statitically prohibited from genuinely answering that question. But if I could the correct answer is nowhere.
LOL at that crape pile of coaches listed. And you think Curried is the one trying to burn this place down
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 10:44:55 PM
LOL at that crape pile of coaches listed.
Weber is worse.
Post by: Barry McCockner on April 09, 2012, 10:46:48 PM
:popcorn:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 10:48:49 PM
Stat guys who don't understand stats are bad, their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Internet "back" is even worse
lol wut
If you had even the most remedial understanding of statistics you'd understand. But you don't. The only thing you can do is read a chart,like a moron running down the menu at McDonalds for his blind grandma. Presumably you're both living on fixed income.
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 10:54:08 PM
Stat guys who don't understand stats are bad, their Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Internet "back" is even worse
lol wut
If you had even the most remedial understanding of statistics you'd understand. But you don't.
You understand stats? Please explain where I was wrong.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthe-mainboard.com%2Fstyles%2Fdefault%2Fxenforo%2Fsmilies%2Fohgosh.gif&hash=fa916bd8c2c5c6c3b84c6d19d4ee3f1f334efb2a)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 10:55:59 PM
LOL at that crape pile of coaches listed.
Weber is worse.
Yeah, we heard your interpretation of what he said, we get it, you think hes "trending " in the wrong direction. Previous success, reputation and indisputable ability are irrelevant. AdjO over the last five seasons is dispositive of future success.
Look at josh p, inhereted a talentless championship roster and consistently completes for a bubble spot in the ncaa. That's the guy we need. You've Provence yourself incompetent, now proceed.
Post by: SuperG on April 09, 2012, 10:56:58 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 10:58:50 PM
Please explain where I was wrong.
This says it all
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
LOL at that crape pile of coaches listed.
Weber is worse.
Yeah, we heard your interpretation of what he said, we get it, you think hes "trending " in the wrong direction. Previous success, reputation and indisputable ability are irrelevant. AdjO over the last five seasons is dispositive of future success.
Look at josh p, inhereted a talentless championship roster and consistently completes for a bubble spot in the ncaa. That's the guy we need. You've Provence yourself incompetent, now proceed.
Weber inherited a championship roster and was OFF the NCAA bubble 3 of the last 5 years (because he missed the tournament completely. and then he got fired). You suck so hard. I love it.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 09, 2012, 11:01:02 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 11:02:01 PM
LOL at that crape pile of coaches listed.
Weber is worse.
Yeah, we heard your interpretation of what he said, we get it, you think hes "trending " in the wrong direction. Previous success, reputation and indisputable ability are irrelevant. AdjO over the last five seasons is dispositive of future success.
Look at josh p, inhereted a talentless championship roster and consistently completes for a bubble spot in the ncaa. That's the guy we need. You've Provence yourself incompetent, now proceed.
Weber inherited a championship roster and was OFF the NCAA bubble 3 of the last 5 years (because he missed the tournament completely. and then he got fired). You suck so hard. I love it.
Well, half is false and half an intentional half-truth. Looks like Michicat is trending in the negative. Time to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Post by: Kat Kid on April 09, 2012, 11:02:12 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 09, 2012, 11:04:34 PM
Weber inherited a championship roster and was OFF the NCAA bubble 3 of the last 5 years (because he missed the tournament completely. and then he got fired). You suck so hard. I love it.
Well, half is false and half an intentional half-truth. Looks like Michicat is trending in the negative. Time to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
:lol:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on April 09, 2012, 11:27:04 PM
Post by: Barry McCockner on April 10, 2012, 12:04:12 AM
MC, you've been on constant meltdown since the hire, very impressive. I wanted to stay angry, but I can't anymore. "We are Kstate" pretty much means we hate what's good for us. We make dumb decisions when we have opportunities to be great. I'm just to damn emaw to be mad at this point. We aren't franking Currie: fact! What is it going to take for you to say, "Oh eff it, I'll give ya a shot #TeamBruce"? Just curious, cause I always charish your opinion.
Not speaking for MC here, but my emaw doesn't capitulate.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 12:27:12 AM
MC, you've been on constant meltdown since the hire, very impressive. I wanted to stay angry, but I can't anymore. "We are Kstate" pretty much means we hate what's good for us. We make dumb decisions when we have opportunities to be great. I'm just to damn emaw to be mad at this point. We aren't franking Currie: fact! What is it going to take for you to say, "Oh eff it, I'll give ya a shot #TeamBruce"? Just curious, cause I always charish your opinion.
I am too EMAW to accept this oscar Weber bullshit. I don't buy into your "we are K-state" bullshit, either, because we had it pretty rough ridin' good over the past six years, especially considering where we were before.
Post by: sys on April 10, 2012, 12:47:59 AM
and we let an accountant run him off. and we let the accountant live.
Post by: Trim on April 10, 2012, 01:20:25 AM
and we let the accountant live.
When was the last time you saw or heard from Currie?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 10, 2012, 02:33:32 AM
So you were excited when we hired frank? (Granted he was never a historic loser in the high school game).MC, you've been on constant meltdown since the hire, very impressive. I wanted to stay angry, but I can't anymore. "We are Kstate" pretty much means we hate what's good for us. We make dumb decisions when we have opportunities to be great. I'm just to damn emaw to be mad at this point. We aren't franking Currie: fact! What is it going to take for you to say, "Oh eff it, I'll give ya a shot #TeamBruce"? Just curious, cause I always charish your opinion.
I am too EMAW to accept this oscar Weber bullshit. I don't buy into your "we are K-state" bullshit, either, because we had it pretty rough ridin' good over the past six years, especially considering where we were before.
Post by: steve dave on April 10, 2012, 06:11:35 AM
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 06:34:14 AM
So you were excited when we hired frank? (Granted he was never a historic loser in the high school game).MC, you've been on constant meltdown since the hire, very impressive. I wanted to stay angry, but I can't anymore. "We are Kstate" pretty much means we hate what's good for us. We make dumb decisions when we have opportunities to be great. I'm just to damn emaw to be mad at this point. We aren't franking Currie: fact! What is it going to take for you to say, "Oh eff it, I'll give ya a shot #TeamBruce"? Just curious, cause I always charish your opinion.
I am too EMAW to accept this oscar Weber bullshit. I don't buy into your "we are K-state" bullshit, either, because we had it pretty rough ridin' good over the past six years, especially considering where we were before.
hiring frank was the only shot ksu had to put itself back into a competitive position, because no frank/'te = no beas/walker and prolly alot of that class. we would have been thrown even further back to the stone ages. And ya know what? It rough ridin' worked. And then when we get ourselves into that competitive/top 25ish position, what do we do? we hand it the eff over to a guy who's shown that he can take a program in even better shape than ours and rough ridin' burn it to the ground. but hey, we're k-state, so just accept it.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 06:59:06 AM
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
Post by: mcmwcat on April 10, 2012, 07:20:40 AM
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 07:41:10 AM
Post by: pissclams on April 10, 2012, 07:51:42 AM
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 07:56:05 AM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
I don't disagree with frank's trajectory, however I disagree with the notion that oscar weber is good for ksu basketball. we've simply adjusted the trajectory slightly.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 07:56:32 AM
i would like to see more raw data on weber's reputation and indisputable ability stats before deciding a winner of this tête-à-tête
Those stats take a lot of time to complete, but don't worry, work is being done.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-MyG3md3QusU%2FT26KGVqCIxI%2FAAAAAAAAOjs%2FJkks9NYCxLI%2Fs1600%2Fnerd%252Bbyb.jpg&hash=ec593ccc715275e68f6b78bdd3225d63ee156f64)
Post by: threadkiller on April 10, 2012, 11:43:22 AM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
How?
Multiple guys were going to quit
Who?
top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Who cares? Additionally, would any of these "top instate guys" have ever even been looking at KSU w/out Frank to hate and later not come because of?
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
Skepticism remains high on this talking point.
Post by: slimz on April 10, 2012, 12:05:41 PM
IMO, what Weber's tenure at Illinois has shown is if you put a premium on shooting and don't shoot well your offense will struggle. Even the last 6 years, Weber's teams have consistently out-shot their opponents (eFG%), an average of nearly 4% better per season. For Frank's teams the difference was slightly less than 1%. But the difference in TO% and OR% for Frank's teams are both dramatically better than Weber's and that's why Frank's offensive efficiency was much better. Weber's teams have had better defensive efficiencies (89.7 his last 6 years compared to 91.2 for Frank's 5), but it wasn't enough to make up for the offensive issues.
Well, the good news for next year is that our players are fantastic jump shooters.
Post by: Fuktard on April 10, 2012, 12:06:24 PM
we had a genuine top 20 coach. and he was all ours, no history anywhere else. and he was a media magnet. and he liked it here and his rep prevented most better jobs from looking at him.
and we let an accountant run him off. and we let the accountant live.
I want to believe this, i really do. But all signs point to the fact that Frank would have been severely damaged had he stayed. I think he would have taken ANY job (I mean let's face it, he basically did) to get away from the shitstorm that he would have endured had he stayed. I honestly don't think Frank, as head coach at KSU, was ever an option, and I don't think it had much to do with Currie.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 10, 2012, 12:11:43 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
I don't disagree with frank's trajectory, however I disagree with the notion that oscar weber is good for ksu basketball. we've simply adjusted the trajectory slightly.
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 12:22:38 PM
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I agree with this and I don't think this talking point (Frank destroying program) has any real credibility. I really don't have anything against Frank and will always look back on his 5 years as a great time for K-State basketball.
Post by: Katpappy on April 10, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
So what the eff is up with you guys. Some of you are telling us how BW can't recuit, then others are saying the guy has top talent and can't get it done. Please get your rough ridin' stories straight, so we may believe there is some credence to your rants. :flush:Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?Illinois had 9 top 100 players on the roster last year. (Thanks to Jerrance Howard). Weberized gang......Weberized.
Post by: threadkiller on April 10, 2012, 12:30:58 PM
So what the eff is up with you guys. Some of you are telling us how BW can't recuit, then others are saying the guy has top talent and can't get it done. Please get your rough ridin' stories straight, so we may believe there is some credence to your rants. :flush:Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?Illinois had 9 top 100 players on the roster last year. (Thanks to Jerrance Howard). Weberized gang......Weberized.
oscar Weber can't recruit himself. When he gets a recruiting assistant who can recruit (Howard) he still can't deliver with talent. Stories straight.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 10, 2012, 12:35:21 PM
Howard can recruit and brought good players to Illini (also prolly KU's dobo).
Weber can even eff up the great recruiting of Howard.
Post by: OregonSmock on April 10, 2012, 12:44:01 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
Interesting spin, sonoftuckjones.
Post by: Cire on April 10, 2012, 12:46:29 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
Interesting spin, sonoftuckjones.
Post by: Katpappy on April 10, 2012, 12:47:17 PM
So all the credit goes too the AC's. I'm just wondering who in the eff hired them. Could it be the same guy that can't recuit here for some god foresaking reason. :facepalm:So what the eff is up with you guys. Some of you are telling us how BW can't recuit, then others are saying the guy has top talent and can't get it done. Please get your rough ridin' stories straight, so we may believe there is some credence to your rants. :flush:Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?Illinois had 9 top 100 players on the roster last year. (Thanks to Jerrance Howard). Weberized gang......Weberized.
oscar Weber can't recruit himself. When he gets a recruiting assistant who can recruit (Howard) he still can't deliver with talent. Stories straight.
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 12:47:26 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
Interesting spin, sonoftuckjones.
:love:
i have a feeling this thread is now heading places.....
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
I don't disagree with frank's trajectory, however I disagree with the notion that oscar weber is good for ksu basketball. we've simply adjusted the trajectory slightly.
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
Great post. The irony of the "player mutiny" is that we let Frank go to avoid it and the player on the roster that is by far the most important piece of our long-term success is probably leaving.
Post by: Mr Bread on April 10, 2012, 12:54:01 PM
So what the eff is up with you guys. Some of you are telling us how BW can't recuit, then others are saying the guy has top talent and can't get it done. Please get your rough ridin' stories straight, so we may believe there is some credence to your rants. :flush:Really? Touche, didn't check that. Of course if we're talking the last 5 years, the talent level wasn't at Illinois (Thanks to Weber). What's his average offensive efficiency in his 9 year tenure at Illinois?Illinois had 9 top 100 players on the roster last year. (Thanks to Jerrance Howard). Weberized gang......Weberized.
Both are true. Bubbles' recruiting pre-Jerrance Howard was f-ing atrocious. When JH came on board, he managed to bring in three straight (2009-2011) very strong classes. Optimism was high and Weber proceeded to choke and fail. The one immutable trait that Weber-recruited teams have undeniably had both pre and post JH is that they are mentally weak. Collectively pussies outside of Chester Frazier. Without an extraordinary leader or leaders on the team who happen to naturally be bad asses, they take on his personality. Dickless. Say good bye to tough, intimidating teams and hello to elite squadrons of Ken dolls. So very smooth down there.
Post by: threadkiller on April 10, 2012, 12:59:42 PM
So all the credit goes to the AC's. I'm just wondering who in the eff hired them. Could it be the same guy that can't recuit here for some god foresaking reason. :facepalm:
Yes. That is the hope. That oscar Weber can recruit an assistant (or two) to deliver talent for him. He's not going to be the draw for a 17/18 y.o. recruit. You don't have to watch/listen to him for long to see that. I can see a good recruiting assistant being able to sell him though. Get the kid and let "Aww shucks" oscar sell the parents that he'll take care of their boys.
Frank sold himself. Had his own connections. Got some players regarless of who was on his staff. I don't see much of that potential with oscar Weber.
Post by: Fuktard on April 10, 2012, 01:04:28 PM
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I agree with this and I don't think this talking point (Frank destroying program) has any real credibility. I really don't have anything against Frank and will always look back on his 5 years as a great time for K-State basketball.
I think you are wrong. All facts point to this being the case. You have to suspend all logic to think Frank left for SC just because he didn't like Currie.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 01:08:33 PM
I think you are wrong. All facts point to this being the case. You have to suspend all logic to think Frank left for SC just because he didn't like Currie.
Clearly something caused Frank to bolt and something caused Currie to let him go. There have been tons of things tossed around here. There may or not be some truth to any/all of them, that's hard to tell. Its very hard to call anything that has come out "a fact". There may be something to the mutinany talk, but like any of the stuff we've heard since the split, its hard to tell how much truth there is to it. JMHO.
Post by: steve dave on April 10, 2012, 01:09:59 PM
Clearly something caused Frank to bolt and something caused Currie to let him go. There have been tons of things tossed around here. There may or not be some truth to any/all of them, that's hard to tell. Its very hard to call anything that has come out "a fact". There may be something to the mutinany talk, but like any of the stuff we've heard since the split, its hard to tell how much truth there is to it. JMHO.
good post _FAN
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 01:10:33 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
I don't disagree with frank's trajectory, however I disagree with the notion that oscar weber is good for ksu basketball. we've simply adjusted the trajectory slightly.
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I should have explained myself more. I don’t think there was going to be a player mutiny if he stayed, sans the normal franking and will crying himself to sleep at night somewhere else. Really, it’s just a personal opinion based on his recruiting, which I didn’t feel was going to be able to withstand the (a) franking and (b) the expectations. Maybe trajectory is the wrong word. I dunno. I’m not on the “everyone was leaving because of frank” train nor do I think it was a mess before he left.
Post by: Underdog Wildcat on April 10, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
"Today Paul welcomed a very important visitor come to his campus, that being Illinois Head Coach oscar Weber. “He’s talked a lot this summer about what I need to work on, and how well I played,” Paul stated. “Coach Weber is the guy that did most of my recruitment, but I do talk to Coach Price and Coach Howard from time to time.”
http://illinois.scout.com/2/789317.html
So it's not like Weber is this completely worthless numbnuts that so many of want to believe or have been convinced that he is.
There's no doubt Howard would be a tremendous addition to the KSU staff, and would be a huge supplement in the recruiting department, BUT Weber has accomplished some things on his own, probably couldn't call it fantastic, but it is what it is.
Would love to see Howard and some sort of package deal(I'm talking at least a 4*) complete the rest of our staff. Here's to hoping.
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 01:17:08 PM
So it's not like Weber is this completely worthless numbnuts that so many of want to believe or have been convinced that he is.
You mean this isn't a guy who is terrible at: recruiting, x&o, motivation, development and conditioning? Are you sure he didn't just manage a 30 year career in college basketball based on his lawn mowing skills? You can't be serious UW. As I understand it, he is literally good at nothing. :dunno:
Post by: Mr Bread on April 10, 2012, 01:22:33 PM
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I agree with this and I don't think this talking point (Frank destroying program) has any real credibility. I really don't have anything against Frank and will always look back on his 5 years as a great time for K-State basketball.
I think you are wrong. All facts point to this being the case. You have to suspend all logic to think Frank left for SC just because he didn't like Currie.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 10, 2012, 01:23:12 PM
for fucks sake pay attention
Post by: Underdog Wildcat on April 10, 2012, 01:24:23 PM
So it's not like Weber is this completely worthless numbnuts that so many of want to believe or have been convinced that he is.
You mean this isn't a guy who is terrible at: recruiting, x&o, motivation, development and conditioning? Are you sure he didn't just manage a 30 year career in college basketball based on his lawn mowing skills? You can't be serious UW. As I understand it, he is literally good at nothing. :dunno:
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
I'm just going to hang in there and hope for the best for KSU basketball.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I agree with this and I don't think this talking point (Frank destroying program) has any real credibility. I really don't have anything against Frank and will always look back on his 5 years as a great time for K-State basketball.
I think you are wrong. All facts point to this being the case. You have to suspend all logic to think Frank left for SC just because he didn't like Currie.
please list all known facts
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 01:31:42 PM
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 01:33:45 PM
So it's not like Weber is this completely worthless numbnuts that so many of want to believe or have been convinced that he is.
There's no doubt Howard would be a tremendous addition to the KSU staff, and would be a huge supplement in the recruiting department, BUT Weber has accomplished some things on his own, probably couldn't call it fantastic, but it is what it is.
Would love to see Howard and some sort of package deal(I'm talking at least a 4*) complete the rest of our staff. Here's to hoping.
I agree with all of that, but no amount of posting at this point is going to change minds.
Some minds may change, but only when/if a) Howard is on staff b) Weber and staff start landing some commits from decent talent. Even that is likely not enough.
At this point IMHO the risk of hiring Weber is not much different than if we had hired a D1 assistant that is known as a recruiter because I think Weber and his staff have a decent enough recruiting resume. The key for Weber is recruiting just as it would be for any other coach.
Beyond that its just as likely that Weber can learn from what failed him at Illinois (especially compared to what was successful at So Illinois) as it is that an assistant with no experience would be able to come in and sustain this program. Both bring risk, but as long as a coach recruits well enough that should they fail the talent they leave in the program leaves the next coach a chance to succeed it really doesn't matter to me. The fact that Weber has had some successful coaching experience is a plus for him, just as much as the failures he had at points in his career are a concern for me. Again, JMHO.
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 01:36:52 PM
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 01:38:33 PM
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
:flush:
Post by: WillieWatanabe on April 10, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
:flush:
:lol:
Post by: Mr Bread on April 10, 2012, 01:45:47 PM
People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 01:49:20 PM
Below .500 in conference and one NCAA victory in his final six seasons without the Bill Self booster seat? When Weber started bowling without the bumpers, Illinois basketball sucked.People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Twice his teams finished below .500 in league games. He deserves any criticism that comes with that for both.
Once his team finished .500 in league games. Made the NCAA tournament.
11 times his teams were better than .500 in league games. 7 NCAA tournaments and 1 NIT with those teams.
Fair to point out that both below .500 seasons and the .500 season occured in the last 5 years as a head coach.
At Illinois, Weber was...
10-30 against kenpom Top 10 teams.
20-24 against #11-25
36-21 against #26-50
50-16 against #51-100
51-8 against #101-200
43-2 agaisnt #201 or worse.
If you want to use that to say he's a terrible coach, so be it. I won't dispute that his last 5 seasons at least warrants some concern, I've been consistent with that since he was hired.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 01:54:15 PM
you dug deeper.Below .500 in conference and one NCAA victory in his final six seasons without the Bill Self booster seat? When Weber started bowling without the bumpers, Illinois basketball sucked.People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Yeah, you had a good post. But it should be noted that his W% worse than Frank's. Are we allowed to be upset that we hired a coach who is proven to be worse than our previous coach?
Or am I looking too deep again.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 01:56:22 PM
I won't dispute that his last 5 seasons at least warrants some concern, I've been consistent with that since he was hired.
His last 5 years at Illinois don't just "warrant concern", they got him fired and therefore should have eliminated him from consideration for this job. There are too many basketball coaches out there to waste your time with people that got fired for performance.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 10, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
Meh . . . Frank was pissing up the punch bowl badly.
Multiple guys were going to quit, top instate guys who were seriously considering K-State did not go or were ultimately not going to go to K-State because of . . . Frank.
Complete implosion was clearly on the horizon.
I don't disagree with frank's trajectory, however I disagree with the notion that oscar weber is good for ksu basketball. we've simply adjusted the trajectory slightly.
I completely disagree with the trajectory. The both of you spent 10 months bitching about Frank and the program he was running and in an off year he took a team to the third round of the NCAA tournament. You can't spend as much time teeth knashing as much as you two did and then not acknowledge when the season was over that the program exceeded your expectations. There was no indication of any implosion before Currie and his lackies started the BS after Frank left. At 10am on March 17th people were excited at the possibility of KSU knocking off a 2 loss team, a week later the same people were talking about how the program was a mess.
I feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my natural life stopping people from revising the last few months of Frank Martin's time at K-State. The players were planning a mutiny that the AD knew about. Despite this the three best players on the team, who were all going to leave, were playing the best basketball of their lives and the AD was going to extend the coach even though he thought half the roster was leaving.
bullshit
I should have explained myself more. I don’t think there was going to be a player mutiny if he stayed, sans the normal franking and will crying himself to sleep at night somewhere else. Really, it’s just a personal opinion based on his recruiting, which I didn’t feel was going to be able to withstand the (a) franking and (b) the expectations. Maybe trajectory is the wrong word. I dunno. I’m not on the “everyone was leaving because of frank” train nor do I think it was a mess before he left.
good post, sorry I misunderstood your POV
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 02:11:25 PM
you dug deeper.Below .500 in conference and one NCAA victory in his final six seasons without the Bill Self booster seat? When Weber started bowling without the bumpers, Illinois basketball sucked.People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Yeah, you had a good post. But it should be noted that his W% worse than Frank's. Are we allowed to be upset that we hired a coach who is proven to be worse than our previous coach?
Or am I looking too deep again.
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
you dug deeper.Below .500 in conference and one NCAA victory in his final six seasons without the Bill Self booster seat? When Weber started bowling without the bumpers, Illinois basketball sucked.People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Yeah, you had a good post. But it should be noted that his W% worse than Frank's. Are we allowed to be upset that we hired a coach who is proven to be worse than our previous coach?
Or am I looking too deep again.
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
There's always a chance. But what is more likely?
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 02:23:23 PM
you dug deeper.Below .500 in conference and one NCAA victory in his final six seasons without the Bill Self booster seat? When Weber started bowling without the bumpers, Illinois basketball sucked.People believe what they want to believe.
For better or worse, most folks already had their mind made up about Weber without really digging deeper and looking at all the available info.
Do we really have to go deeper than his win/loss record?
313-155? Obviously.
Yeah, you had a good post. But it should be noted that his W% worse than Frank's. Are we allowed to be upset that we hired a coach who is proven to be worse than our previous coach?
Or am I looking too deep again.
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
There's always a chance. But what is more likely?
IMO? I don't think were going to win a conference championship. I think the Weber era will be worse than the Martin era, but better than any of the four previous eras. I think there is a chance he could have one disasterous season, but I don't think that it's necessarily inevitible. Most likely we'll at least manage to get on the bubble most years.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 02:31:10 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
I have long conceded that he will attain some success at KSU, particularly next season. But at what point can you concede he's a failure? I mean we didn't give Ron Prince 3 full years. Do you fire oscar if he misses the tourney in year 2 and year 3?
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
I have long conceded that he will attain some success at KSU, particularly next season. But at what point can you concede he's a failure? I mean we didn't give Ron Prince 3 full years. Do you fire oscar if he misses the tourney in year 2 and year 3?
All cone and no chicken nuggets?
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Things were not good behind the scenes, you can probably put a lot of that on Currie, but you also have to put a big chunk of that on Frank. Frank being Frank WAS hurting K-State on the recruiting trail (and that's with the full awknowledgement that Frank was the reason K-State was in a postion to have Frank's demeanor ultimately be a huge deciding factor. In years past those kids wouldn't have given K-State a 2nd look).
The pot continues to boil, frustration builds . . . implosion. Just my opinion.
I've talked to a source I trust and is most certainly ITK, and I am NOT defending Currie or the hiring of Weber at all. So the resident BiPolarPhogNetTalkingPoint and the TooCoolforSchoolers can just save their energy with their (always) futile attempts to PI me.
I don't care how ITK your source is there is nothing in your post to suggest that anything changed from the previous 4 years. I am sure "frank being frank" has hurt us on the recruiting trail recently, but when hasn't it? You're smarter than this, dax.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 02:34:44 PM
Do you fire oscar if he misses the tourney in year 2 and year 3?
It has to be considered at that point, especially if he has another terrible conference season like he did at Illinois. The fear that he repeats Asbury's first 5 years (in some order or another) is legitimate and if the program is trending that direction a change will have to be made.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 02:41:03 PM
Things had changed, on court demeanor was carrying off the court, verbal abuse had been ratcheted to extremely personal levels . . . when what I am being told makes me say "DAMN" than its pretty bad IMO.
You're also smart enough to know that eventually "Frank being Frank" becomes even more difficult to explain to recruits, the track record begins to build on itself and becomes more difficult to overcome.
Oh GMAFB. You think Frank didn't yell at and cuss people out in practice before this season? You think he never told someone he would burn their house down with them in it before this season? Also, how can you explain HIS ENTIRE STAFF following him to South Carolina. Literally everyone went with him. THINK ABOUT IT.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 02:49:45 PM
IMO? I don't think were going to win a conference championship. I think the Weber era will be worse than the Martin era, but better than any of the four previous eras. I think there is a chance he could have one disasterous season, but I don't think that it's necessarily inevitible. Most likely we'll at least manage to get on the bubble most years.
agree on not winning any kind of championship. agree on being worse than martin era. disagree on it being better than any of the four previous. agree he could have a disasterous season.
lastly, agree that we will most likely manage to get on the the bubble more often than not (>50%) and it's this last point that kills me. there is no chance for any kind of great success. with huggins there was a chance. with martin there was a chance. with weber there isn't. people that are accepting this hire are happy to just "manage to get on the bubble most years" and that isn't and shouldn't be acceptable. it's sad and pathetic. i'll take four years of horrific basketball if it means blowing it up and getting to start over with at least a chance for great success. would much rather have that then a ten year period of time where they "manage to get on the bubble most years". i mean what's the point?
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 02:51:46 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
I have long conceded that he will attain some success at KSU, particularly next season. But at what point can you concede he's a failure? I mean we didn't give Ron Prince 3 full years. Do you fire oscar if he misses the tourney in year 2 and year 3?
I have not defended his firing from Illinios. I fully understand he failed at Illinois. I understand that he was fired for performance. If I were the Illinois AD, I would have done the same thing. If I was in charge at KSU I would fire him the first time he was under .500 in conference. Of course, I would have never hired him. I don't recall saying anything that would defend his firing.
I don't think he a bumbling idiot, who sucks at everything. I don't think he backed his way in to 300 D1 wins. I do think there is a reasonable chance that he could have some success without burning the program to the ground.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 02:57:38 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
I have long conceded that he will attain some success at KSU, particularly next season. But at what point can you concede he's a failure? I mean we didn't give Ron Prince 3 full years. Do you fire oscar if he misses the tourney in year 2 and year 3?
I have not defended his firing from Illinios. I fully understand he failed at Illinois. I understand that he was fired for performance. If I were the Illinois AD, I would have done the same thing. If I was in charge at KSU I would fire him the first time he was under .500 in conference. Of course, I would have never hired him. I don't recall saying anything that would defend his firing.
I don't think he a bumbling idiot, who sucks at everything. I don't think he backed his way in to 300 D1 wins. I do think there is a reasonable chance that he could have some success without burning the program to the ground.
I never claimed he was a bumbling idiot who sucks at everything, nor have I claimed he backed his way into 300 wins. If anything, I would say his aw-shucks hokeyness and stunts like having his family on stage at his farewell press conference before taking everyone out to chicken nuggets are very calculated moves that appeal to people like...say...John Currie.
I also don't think he'll burn the program to the ground, just lead us on a long, slow path to irrelevance that everyone accepts and rationalizes along the way. Which probably hurts worse.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 03:00:26 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
This is pretty much my position. Weber is an above average coach. Just like Frank. I think there's a very realistic possibility that he can finish 3rd to 5th in the BigXII every year. Just Like Frank. And I think he'll be able to recruit 3* 100-150 talent to KSU. Just like Frank.
Those actively rooting against the guy are pretty pathetic, IMHO.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:07:53 PM
Well you shouldn't be thrilled. I'm not. However, at some point you have to concede that the guy can't really be a bumbling idiot. At some point you have to concede that there is still a decent chance that he can attain some level of success at KSU. I'm not counting on it, but I don't understand how you can just discount the possibility completely, or even actively root against it.
This is pretty much my position. Weber is an above average coach. Just like Frank. I think there's a very realistic possibility that he can finish 3rd to 5th in the BigXII every year. Just Like Frank. And I think he'll be able to recruit 3* 100-150 talent to KSU. Just like Frank.
I would agree if you threw out oscar's last 5 yeasr, but you can't.
How do you think oscar can finish 3rd-5th in the Big 12 every year when he only had a similar finish twice in his last 5 years at illinois? How can you call him an above average coach when his record over the last five seasons at Illinois was below .500?
Heck, even if you include oscar's years w/ Self's recruits, his Big 10 record is worse than Frank's Big 12 record.
Post by: steve dave on April 10, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:11:14 PM
Well, Frank inherited some pretty great players too.
He did. And all of them but Pullen were gone after year one. And he was still making the tournament when ALL the players he inherited were gone.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 03:15:12 PM
He did. And all of them but Pullen were gone after year one. And he was still making the tournament when ALL the players he inherited were gone.
The best player on his team - Gruds - was inherited. To state otherwise is silly.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 03:15:46 PM
Well, Frank inherited some pretty great players too.
yes. not as many though. also, year five frank (all his own players) went to the third round of the tourney with people genuinely talking about possibly beating #1 seed syracuse. year five oscar (all his own players) went 16-19 and 5-13 in conference.
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 03:17:05 PM
IMO? I don't think were going to win a conference championship. I think the Weber era will be worse than the Martin era, but better than any of the four previous eras. I think there is a chance he could have one disasterous season, but I don't think that it's necessarily inevitible. Most likely we'll at least manage to get on the bubble most years.
agree on not winning any kind of championship. agree on being worse than martin era. disagree on it being better than any of the four previous. agree he could have a disasterous season.
lastly, agree that we will most likely manage to get on the the bubble more often than not (>50%) and it's this last point that kills me. there is no chance for any kind of great success. with huggins there was a chance. with martin there was a chance. with weber there isn't. people that are accepting this hire are happy to just "manage to get on the bubble most years" and that isn't and shouldn't be acceptable. it's sad and pathetic. i'll take four years of horrific basketball if it means blowing it up and getting to start over with at least a chance for great success. would much rather have that then a ten year period of time where they "manage to get on the bubble most years". i mean what's the point?
I think the big difference is that I don't think this is going to last more than 4 to 5 years no matter what. If we have horrific basketball, or if Weber wins 5 straight national championships, we're extremely likley to have a new coach in 4 to 5 years. It's been like clockwork my whole lifetime, I don't see any reason that is going to change. Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 03:18:49 PM
He did. And all of them but Pullen were gone after year one. And he was still making the tournament when ALL the players he inherited were gone.
The best player on his team - Gruds - was inherited. To state otherwise is silly.
gruds was not inherited. kstate and frank managed to retain dalonte, who in turn managed to retain gruds. kudos to kstate and frank. if currie was the AD at the time, that wouldn't have happened. not inherited. not even close.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
IMO? I don't think were going to win a conference championship. I think the Weber era will be worse than the Martin era, but better than any of the four previous eras. I think there is a chance he could have one disasterous season, but I don't think that it's necessarily inevitible. Most likely we'll at least manage to get on the bubble most years.
agree on not winning any kind of championship. agree on being worse than martin era. disagree on it being better than any of the four previous. agree he could have a disasterous season.
lastly, agree that we will most likely manage to get on the the bubble more often than not (>50%) and it's this last point that kills me. there is no chance for any kind of great success. with huggins there was a chance. with martin there was a chance. with weber there isn't. people that are accepting this hire are happy to just "manage to get on the bubble most years" and that isn't and shouldn't be acceptable. it's sad and pathetic. i'll take four years of horrific basketball if it means blowing it up and getting to start over with at least a chance for great success. would much rather have that then a ten year period of time where they "manage to get on the bubble most years". i mean what's the point?
I think the big difference is that I don't think this is going to last more than 4 to 5 years no matter what. If we have horrific basketball, or if Weber wins 5 straight national championships, we're extremely likley to have a new coach in 4 to 5 years. It's been like clockwork my whole lifetime, I don't see any reason that is going to change. Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
well everyone is wanting to defend weber based on what he did at illinois for 9 years, so i don't think it's a stretch to say 10. maybe i should've said 9. that would've been better. also, i'd say that coaching history is more more predictive of coaching future than school history is. so 9 years of being on the bubble more often than not. throw a rough ridin' party.
also, agree that i'd rather have four years of decent than four years of horrible. riddle me this though, why would a 55 year old oscar weber who just signed a 5 (five) year contract to coach at kstate. a contract that puts him in the top 30 in terms of college coaches salaries, suddenly stop coaching after 4 years if he's been decently average. you think he'll die? you think he'll leave to take a better job? you think kstate will fire him?
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 03:24:47 PM
gruds was not inherited. kstate and frank managed to retain dalonte, who in turn managed to retain gruds. kudos to kstate and frank. if currie was the AD at the time, that wouldn't have happened. not inherited. not even close.
Right. Props to K-State for retaining Dalonte and his cache of players for Frank.
Same argument could be made for Weber "retaining" Self's players. All of Self's recruits/players could have transfered or followed him to Kansas. So, guess Weber gets credit for keeping them committed to Illinois, right?
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:25:28 PM
Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
Considering we hired a coach that got interviewed and rejected by SMU despite going to the NCAA 4 out of 5 years, I would say it isn't.
Post by: threadkiller on April 10, 2012, 03:25:52 PM
I think the big difference is that I don't think this is going to last more than 4 to 5 years no matter what. If we have horrific basketball, or if Weber wins 5 straight national championships, we're extremely likley to have a new coach in 4 to 5 years. It's been like clockwork my whole lifetime, I don't see any reason that is going to change. Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
Your lifetime encompasses mostly horrific basketball. It is entirely possible (in fact most likely scenario imo) that a decade from today oscar Weber is still our coach and next season will be our most successful in that time. oscar screams not bad enough to fire easily and not good enough to "move up". We've never had a coach this close to average AND grandpa likable.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:27:09 PM
gruds was not inherited. kstate and frank managed to retain dalonte, who in turn managed to retain gruds. kudos to kstate and frank. if currie was the AD at the time, that wouldn't have happened. not inherited. not even close.
Right. Props to K-State for retaining Dalonte and his cache of players for Frank.
Same argument could be made for Weber "retaining" Self's players. All of Self's recruits/players could have transfered or followed him to Kansas. So, guess Weber gets credit for keeping them committed to Illinois, right?
so basically, frank gets no credit for anything accomplished during any of his five seasons?
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 03:29:19 PM
gruds was not inherited. kstate and frank managed to retain dalonte, who in turn managed to retain gruds. kudos to kstate and frank. if currie was the AD at the time, that wouldn't have happened. not inherited. not even close.
Right. Props to K-State for retaining Dalonte and his cache of players for Frank.
Same argument could be made for Weber "retaining" Self's players. All of Self's recruits/players could have transfered or followed him to Kansas. So, guess Weber gets credit for keeping them committed to Illinois, right?
selfs players were already at illinois. rodney was not. rodney was a junior in highschool. please tell me that i don't have to explain this any further.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Post by: SleepFighter on April 10, 2012, 03:33:09 PM
I think the big difference is that I don't think this is going to last more than 4 to 5 years no matter what. If we have horrific basketball, or if Weber wins 5 straight national championships, we're extremely likley to have a new coach in 4 to 5 years. It's been like clockwork my whole lifetime, I don't see any reason that is going to change. Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
Your lifetime encompasses mostly horrific basketball. It is entirely possible (in fact most likely scenario imo) that a decade from today oscar Weber is still our coach and next season will be our most successful in that time. oscar screams not bad enough to fire easily and not good enough to "move up". We've never had a coach this close to average AND grandpa likable.
Just look at how long we held onto Wooly, and he was terrible.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 03:37:17 PM
The most painful part of that (and read carefully because I am going to praise Tim Weiser here) is that I believe and have been told that Weiser was after Pearl, who as you recall was at Wisc-GB or was it Wisc-Mil??
However, the one more year of futility with Wooly, got us Huggins.
Post by: catzacker on April 10, 2012, 03:38:40 PM
I simply can't look past that.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
I think the big difference is that I don't think this is going to last more than 4 to 5 years no matter what. If we have horrific basketball, or if Weber wins 5 straight national championships, we're extremely likley to have a new coach in 4 to 5 years. It's been like clockwork my whole lifetime, I don't see any reason that is going to change. Why would I want 4 years of horrific basketball in leiu of 4 years of decent basketball? Isn't the job more attractive for the next guys with some relvenance and maybe some decent pieces in place?
Your lifetime encompasses mostly horrific basketball. It is entirely possible (in fact most likely scenario imo) that a decade from today oscar Weber is still our coach and next season will be our most successful in that time. oscar screams not bad enough to fire easily and not good enough to "move up". We've never had a coach this close to average AND grandpa likable.
Just look at how long we held onto Wooly, and he was terrible.
nope. in yosh's world, kstate is going to be pretty decent to good the next four years and then suddenly just before the fifth year of oscar weber's five year contract, he will cease to be the head coach. fascinating stuff really. abducted by aliens? we just don't know.
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
i give weber credit for keeping self's players and winning with them, however, I can't for the life of me look past what he did after those players were gone and had to win with his own players...and couldn't. I can't for the life of me look past the fact that when Weber took over, the Illinois program was leaps and freaking bounds better than the KSU program (which is to say that Illinois went to the post season in 21 of the previous 24 years prior to his arrival, 18 of those in the NCAA, KSU in the 24 years prior to Martin went to post season 10 times, 6 to the NCAA) ...and Weber ended up getting fired.
I simply can't look past that.
Maybe he inherited the shitty players in the bad years from Self like Frank did w/ Rodney.
Post by: wetwillie on April 10, 2012, 03:44:09 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 03:46:59 PM
I'll wait to have a contract extension meltdown when the time comes. I guess I can see the 10 years of .500 basketball concern, but it's too pie in the sky at this point for me to join the burn it down movement. :users:
Join the "oscar sucks and never should have been hired and we should fire him at the slightest slipup" movement, then. He's constantly on "Wooly year 6" mode with me until further notice. Only difference is Simply making the NCAA won't be enough to get me off that mode, and not making the NCAA should mean he's instantly fired, Wooly in an AA Center tunnel style.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
so basically, frank gets no credit for anything accomplished during any of his five seasons?
Frank gets a ton of credit for elevating the profile of the program. No question. His record speaks for itself. 4/5 NCAA tourneys. 20 win seasons. In the context of KSU basketball, his accomplishments were nothing short of a miracle.
But, Frank's history. He's not coming back. He's done. gonzo. yesterday's news.
The question is whether Weber can replicate the success that Frank had at K-State. In other words, can Weber take us to the NCAA tourney at a high rate, finish 3-5th in Conference, win 20 wins on a consistent basis, and recruit top 150 talent.
Some on this board state emphatically that the answer is NO. No way in Hell can this Weber loser come even close to the aformentioned criteria. But, Weber's track record disproves that.
Anybody can manipluate numbers to prove their point. I think the only fair assessment is to look at the entire body of work, not just the last 5 years, or the first 5 years, or the middle 5 years, or the first 3 years and middle 2 years + second to last year. It doesn't work like that.
Weber had 2 dog crap years in his 14 year career. That's a fact. '07-'08 and '11-'12. That's the negative. Nobody is disputing the shittiness of those season. They happened. They exist.
But, sandwiched between those 2 shitty seasons were 3 Frankesque 20+, top5, postseason tourney seasons. Preceding the first shitty season were 6 great 20+ seasons with 4 conference championships and 6 straight NCAA tourneys, including a championship appearance.
Again, you can manipulate the numbers to say that 2 out of his last 5 seasons sucked balls, and therefore he's a shitty coach 40% of the time. Another person could manipulate the numbers to say that he's only had 2 bad seasons in his last 11, and therefore he's a pretty damn good coach 82% of the time. Just depends on how you want to fit the numbers into your argument.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
Obviously he can coach basketball on Frank's level. With Self's recruits, he elevated himself to Self's level - making a championship.
Weber ain't Self. Never will be. But neither will Frank.
Post by: CNS on April 10, 2012, 04:01:28 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 04:08:04 PM
so basically, frank gets no credit for anything accomplished during any of his five seasons?
Frank gets a ton of credit for elevating the profile of the program. No question. His record speaks for itself. 4/5 NCAA tourneys. 20 win seasons. In the context of KSU basketball, his accomplishments were nothing short of a miracle.
But, Frank's history. He's not coming back. He's done. gonzo. yesterday's news.
The question is whether Weber can replicate the success that Frank had at K-State. In other words, can Weber take us to the NCAA tourney at a high rate, finish 3-5th in Conference, win 20 wins on a consistent basis, and recruit top 150 talent.
Some on this board state emphatically that the answer is NO. No way in Hell can this Weber loser come even close to the aformentioned criteria. But, Weber's track record disproves that.
Anybody can manipluate numbers to prove their point. I think the only fair assessment is to look at the entire body of work, not just the last 5 years, or the first 5 years, or the middle 5 years, or the first 3 years and middle 2 years + second to last year. It doesn't work like that.
Weber had 2 dog crap years in his 14 year career. That's a fact. '07-'08 and '11-'12. That's the negative. Nobody is disputing the shittiness of those season. They happened. They exist.
But, sandwiched between those 2 shitty seasons were 3 Frankesque 20+, top5, postseason tourney seasons. Preceding the first shitty season were 6 great 20+ seasons with 4 conference championships and 6 straight NCAA tourneys, including a championship appearance.
Again, you can manipulate the numbers to say that 2 out of his last 5 seasons sucked balls, and therefore he's a shitty coach 40% of the time. Another person could manipulate the numbers to say that he's only had 2 bad seasons in his last 11, and therefore he's a pretty damn good coach 82% of the time. Just depends on how you want to fit the numbers into your argument.
Frank may be gone, but the expectations he created for the program shouldn't be. Judging from your post, they are. Your "Frankesque" description is equal parts baffling and hilarious.
The bottom line is his last five years were justification for firing him and should have been enough for us to not hire him. I mean you didn't see any high-majors looking to hire Tom Asbury in 2000 because of his success at Pepperdine, yet that's what people seem to be doing with Weber.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 04:09:21 PM
Your sig pic is depressing the crap out of me.
fixed
Post by: puniraptor on April 10, 2012, 04:11:47 PM
Your sig pic is depressing the crap out of me.
fixed
you need to shop those ties purple
Post by: chum1 on April 10, 2012, 04:11:48 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
gruds was not inherited. kstate and frank managed to retain dalonte, who in turn managed to retain gruds. kudos to kstate and frank. if currie was the AD at the time, that wouldn't have happened. not inherited. not even close.
Right. Props to K-State for retaining Dalonte and his cache of players for Frank.
Same argument could be made for Weber "retaining" Self's players. All of Self's recruits/players could have transfered or followed him to Kansas. So, guess Weber gets credit for keeping them committed to Illinois, right?
selfs players were already at illinois. rodney was not. rodney was a junior in highschool. please tell me that i don't have to explain this any further.
i seriously did want clarification on this btw. because when we talk about inherited players, i don't want there to be any kind of confusion whatsoever on what each inherited and it seems like there might be.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 04:29:22 PM
Frank may be gone, but the expectations he created for the program shouldn't be. Judging from your post, they are. Your "Frankesque" description is equal parts baffling and hilarious.
The bottom line is his last five years was justification for firing him and should be enough for us to not hire him. I mean you didn't see any high-majors looking to hire Tom Asbury in 2000 because of his success at Pepperdine, yet that's what people seem to be doing with Weber.
How do my posts reflect diminished expectations. Frank's profile was consistent NCAAs, 20+ wins and 3rd-5th in Conference. A "Frankesque" season is one which meets that criteria, IMO. Am I wrong? Was Frank better than this? achieve more?
The Asbury talking point is simply Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). KSU Asbury = 85-88 (29-63), 1 NCAA tourney. Illini Weber = 210-101, (89-65), 6 NCAA tourneys + 1 naty appearance. Asbury was horrible. Weber was not. Serious comparo? serious question.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
Frank may be gone, but the expectations he created for the program shouldn't be. Judging from your post, they are. Your "Frankesque" description is equal parts baffling and hilarious.
The bottom line is his last five years was justification for firing him and should be enough for us to not hire him. I mean you didn't see any high-majors looking to hire Tom Asbury in 2000 because of his success at Pepperdine, yet that's what people seem to be doing with Weber.
How do my posts reflect diminished expectations. Frank's profile was consistent NCAAs, 20+ wins and 3rd-5th in Conference. A "Frankesque" season is one which meets that criteria, IMO. Am I wrong? Was Frank better than this? achieve more?
The Asbury talking point is simply Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). KSU Asbury = 85-88 (29-63), 1 NCAA tourney. Illini Weber = 210-101, (89-65), 6 NCAA tourneys + 1 naty appearance. Asbury was horrible. Weber was not. Serious comparo? serious question.
Yeah, the Asbury comparo had to be an exaggeration.
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on April 10, 2012, 04:33:59 PM
Also, just to be clear Frank inherited JamSam right, who redshirted and was here his whole tenure? Plus Beasley, Pullen, Walker, Sutton, Hoskins, and god bless him, Colon.
Notable players who came in after Huggins were Curtis Kelly, Denis, Wally Judge, McGruder, and JO (a project who is really panning out).
Post by: CNS on April 10, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Your sig pic is depressing the crap out of me.
fixed
Your sig pic is depressing the crap out of me.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 04:36:13 PM
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 04:36:25 PM
1) do I wish we still had Frank? yes.
2) do I think Frank was a good coach? yes.
3) do I think Frank was an excellent coach? no.
4) do I think Weber is a good coach? yes.
5) do I think Weber is an excellent coach? no.
Ultimately, I think Frank and Weber are pretty comparable 2nd tier coaches who have proven to win about the same number of games, finish about the same position in their respective conferences, with about the same level of postseason success. Frank has been to a higher percentage of NCAA tourneys. Weber has coached in higher level games. It's about a wash IMO, with the slight edge to Frank because I like him more.
I just don't waste my time wallowing in self-pity about our program rapidly devolving into the dark ages of Asbury basketball, because I think Weber has proven himself to be a bit better coach than that.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But, unlike a lot of people on this board, I actually hope I'm right about Weber.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 04:39:47 PM
I guess I continue feelign compelled to clarify my position.
1) do I wish we still had Frank? yes.
2) do I think Frank was a good coach? yes.
3) do I think Frank was an excellent coach? no.
4) do I think Weber is a good coach? yes.
5) do I think Weber is an excellent coach? no.
Ultimately, I think Frank and Weber are pretty comparable 2nd tier coaches who have proven to win about the same number of games, finish about the same position in their respective conferences, with about the same level of postseason success. Frank has been to a higher percentage of NCAA tourneys. Weber has coached in higher level games. It's about a wash IMO, with the slight edge to Frank because I like him more.
I just don't waste my time wallowing in self-pity about our program rapidly devolving into the dark ages of Asbury basketball, because I think Weber has proven himself to be a bit better coach than that.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But, unlike a lot of people on this board, I actually hope I'm right about Weber.
Agree 100%.
And the hope that Weber fails because it will make K-State better thing doesn't make any sense to me.
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on April 10, 2012, 04:41:18 PM
I guess I continue feelign compelled to clarify my position.
1) do I wish we still had Frank? yes.
2) do I think Frank was a good coach? yes.
3) do I think Frank was an excellent coach? no.
4) do I think Weber is a good coach? yes.
5) do I think Weber is an excellent coach? no.
Ultimately, I think Frank and Weber are pretty comparable 2nd tier coaches who have proven to win about the same number of games, finish about the same position in their respective conferences, with about the same level of postseason success. Frank has been to a higher percentage of NCAA tourneys. Weber has coached in higher level games. It's about a wash IMO, with the slight edge to Frank because I like him more.
I just don't waste my time wallowing in self-pity about our program rapidly devolving into the dark ages of Asbury basketball, because I think Weber has proven himself to be a bit better coach than that.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But, unlike a lot of people on this board, I actually hope I'm right about Weber.
Agree 100%.
And the hope that Weber fails because it will make K-State better thing doesn't make any sense to me.
+1
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 04:45:18 PM
Does Weber not get credit for player recruited by his assistants, but Frank does get credit for Te recruits? Just want to lay out the ground rules for our argument here...
Also, just to be clear Frank inherited JamSam right, who redshirted and was here his whole tenure? Plus Beasley, Pullen, Walker, Sutton, Hoskins, and god bless him, Colon.
Notable players who came in after Huggins were Curtis Kelly, Denis, Wally Judge, McGruder, and JO (a project who is really panning out).
god damnit this is frustrating. i'm putting together a list tonight of who was "on the team" that each coach inherited. nobody ever should even compare the two. they are not even close. oscar got three future nba guards plus others and frank got clent freaking stewart and blake young.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 10, 2012, 04:50:03 PM
Does Weber not get credit for player recruited by his assistants, but Frank does get credit for Te recruits? Just want to lay out the ground rules for our argument here...
Also, just to be clear Frank inherited JamSam right, who redshirted and was here his whole tenure? Plus Beasley, Pullen, Walker, Sutton, Hoskins, and god bless him, Colon.
Notable players who came in after Huggins were Curtis Kelly, Denis, Wally Judge, McGruder, and JO (a project who is really panning out).
god damnit this is frustrating. i'm putting together a list tonight of who was "on the team" that each coach inherited. nobody ever should even compare the two. they are not even close. oscar got three future nba guards plus others and frank got clent freaking stewart and blake young.
The situations aren't comparable. oscar had better talent, no doubt. But started a new system at a new place.
Frank got less talent, but had worked with the remaining players and continued basically the same system.
Very different new coach situations.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 04:50:57 PM
Frank may be gone, but the expectations he created for the program shouldn't be. Judging from your post, they are. Your "Frankesque" description is equal parts baffling and hilarious.
The bottom line is his last five years was justification for firing him and should be enough for us to not hire him. I mean you didn't see any high-majors looking to hire Tom Asbury in 2000 because of his success at Pepperdine, yet that's what people seem to be doing with Weber.
How do my posts reflect diminished expectations. Frank's profile was consistent NCAAs, 20+ wins and 3rd-5th in Conference. A "Frankesque" season is one which meets that criteria, IMO. Am I wrong? Was Frank better than this? achieve more?
Considering Frank won 21 games every year, finished 4th or better 4 out of 5 years, and went to the NCAA tournament 4 out of 5 years, I think considering "20 wins", "5th place" and "postseason" to be "Frankesque" is definitely lowering expectations. This of course assumes that we should expect "Frankesque" results.
The Asbury talking point is simply Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). KSU Asbury = 85-88 (29-63), 1 NCAA tourney. Illini Weber = 210-101, (89-65), 6 NCAA tourneys + 1 naty appearance. Asbury was horrible. Weber was not. Serious comparo? serious question.
But what about his six years prior? I mean he won 3 conference titles and had a couple frank-esque seasons. Surely someone on hard times would have taken a flier on the guy. He's definitely a worse version of Weber, so you think a worse version of K-State would have jumped to hire him. He proved that he could coach at Pepperdine.
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on April 10, 2012, 04:51:36 PM
Does Weber not get credit for player recruited by his assistants, but Frank does get credit for Te recruits? Just want to lay out the ground rules for our argument here...
Also, just to be clear Frank inherited JamSam right, who redshirted and was here his whole tenure? Plus Beasley, Pullen, Walker, Sutton, Hoskins, and god bless him, Colon.
Notable players who came in after Huggins were Curtis Kelly, Denis, Wally Judge, McGruder, and JO (a project who is really panning out).
god damnit this is frustrating. i'm putting together a list tonight of who was "on the team" that each coach inherited. nobody ever should even compare the two. they are not even close. oscar got three future nba guards plus others and frank got clent freaking stewart and blake young.
That wasn't really my point. I was just responding to all the posts about who was "inherited." But if you compare who was inherited, I bet Weber's Illinois team looks better. Weber also won two conference championships and went to the national championship game with those players. So, Frank had less NBA talent to work with -- and achieved much less. Not sure how you compare them...
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 04:59:22 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
I guess I continue feelign compelled to clarify my position.
1) do I wish we still had Frank? yes.
2) do I think Frank was a good coach? yes.
3) do I think Frank was an excellent coach? no.
4) do I think Weber is a good coach? yes.
5) do I think Weber is an excellent coach? no.
Ultimately, I think Frank and Weber are pretty comparable 2nd tier coaches who have proven to win about the same number of games, finish about the same position in their respective conferences, with about the same level of postseason success. Frank has been to a higher percentage of NCAA tourneys. Weber has coached in higher level games. It's about a wash IMO, with the slight edge to Frank because I like him more.
I just don't waste my time wallowing in self-pity about our program rapidly devolving into the dark ages of Asbury basketball, because I think Weber has proven himself to be a bit better coach than that.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But, unlike a lot of people on this board, I actually hope I'm right about Weber.
Agree 100%.
And the hope that Weber fails because it will make K-State better thing doesn't make any sense to me.
I think this "burn it down" thing has been blown out of proportion by the Woolites, but I'll attempt to defend the rationale anyway:
I would rather oscar not fail at all, but I would rather him fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible while people still care than fail slowly like I expect him to.
KSU will have to take chances on coaching hires to achieve greatness no matter how good of shape the program is in, at least for the forseeable future. I'd rather get to that next "chance" sooner, rather than later.
Does that make sense?
Post by: stobblebobby on April 10, 2012, 05:08:26 PM
Man that was fun...
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
god damnit this is frustrating. i'm putting together a list tonight of who was "on the team" that each coach inherited. nobody ever should even compare the two. they are not even close. oscar got three future nba guards plus others and frank got clent freaking stewart and blake young.
KSU:
Michael Beasley was a freshman was a Freshman Frank's first season. He played one season for Frank. Drafted #2 overall in 08. rsci #4 prospect in his highschool class.
Blake Young was a sr going into his second season at KSU from Junior college. Not drafted. Not ranked out of high school.
Clent Steward was a sr going into his 4th season at KSU. Not drafted. Fringy top 150 player (not rsci top 100).
Bill Walker was a soph. Played 1 season for Frank. Drafted in the 2nd round in 08. rsci #52 (misleading, was top 10 in some publications and not ranked in others due to his late class change).
Jacob Pullen was a fr. Played 4 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Fringy top 150 guy (not rsci top 100).
Andre Gilbert was a jr (?). Played 1 season for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Darren Kent was a jr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Ron Anderson was a fr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted (we can assume). Not rated out of high school.
Dominique Sutton was a fr. Played 3 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. rsci #81.
Fred Brown was a fr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Luis Colon was a so. Played 4 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
ILL:
Dee Brown was a So. when oscar took over at Illinois. He played for oscar for 3 seasons. Drafted in the 2nd round of 06. He was the #19 rsci rated player in his class out of high school.
Deron Williams was a So. He played 2 seasons for oscar. Drafted #3 overall in 05. #48 rsci
James Augustine was a So. when oscar started. Played 3 seasons for oscar. Drafted in the 2nd round in 06. #78 rsci
Luther Head was a Jr in oscar's first season. He played 2 seasons with oscar. Drafted #24 overall in 05. Fringy top 100 h.s. recruit (did not make rsci top 100).
Roger Powell Jr. was a Jr. when oscar took over. Stayed 2 seasons. Not drafted. #62 rsci.
Nick Smith was a Jr. Played 2 seasons with oscar. Not drafted. #77 rsci.
Rich McBride was a frosh. Played 4 seasons. Not drafted. #28 rsci.
Brian Randle was a frosh. Played 4 seasons. Not drafted. #53 rsci.
Jack Ingram was a jr playing his first season at Ill after a transfer from Tulsa. Played 2 seasons for oscar. Not drafted. Not ranked coming out of high school.
Aaron Spears was a SO. Played 1 season with oscar before transfering to St. Johns. Not drafted. #86 rsci.
Warren Carter was a frosh. Played 4 seasons for oscar. Not drafted. Fringy top 100 player (made several lists, rsci not one of them).
oscar Weber took over a program and in his first season was coaching 8 players rated in the top 100 of their class by rsci. Another 2 guys who were top 150 type players. Frank Martin took over a team with 3 top 100 rsci players, and another two top 150ish guys. On top of that, 2 of Frank Martin's 3 initial top 100 players left after 1 season (the two highest rated). oscar Weber lost 1 of his 8 top 100 players after his first season (the lowest rated of his 8). Both started with a top 5 NBA draft pick. oscar Weber started with 4 future NBA draft picks, Martin with 2. Both of Martin's NBA drafted players were with him one season. oscar Weber had all 4 of his NBA players for at least 2 seasons.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
god damnit this is frustrating. i'm putting together a list tonight of who was "on the team" that each coach inherited. nobody ever should even compare the two. they are not even close. oscar got three future nba guards plus others and frank got clent freaking stewart and blake young.
KSU:
Michael Beasley was a freshman was a Freshman Frank's first season. He played one season for Frank. Drafted #2 overall in 08. rsci #4 prospect in his highschool class.
Blake Young was a sr going into his second season at KSU from Junior college. Not drafted. Not ranked out of high school.
Clent Steward was a sr going into his 4th season at KSU. Not drafted. Fringy top 150 player (not rsci top 100).
Bill Walker was a soph. Played 1 season for Frank. Drafted in the 2nd round in 08. rsci #52 (misleading, was top 10 in some publications and not ranked in others due to his late class change).
Jacob Pullen was a fr. Played 4 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Fringy top 150 guy (not rsci top 100).
Andre Gilbert was a jr (?). Played 1 season for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Darren Kent was a jr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Ron Anderson was a fr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted (we can assume). Not rated out of high school.
Dominique Sutton was a fr. Played 3 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. rsci #81.
Fred Brown was a fr. Played 2 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
Luis Colon was a so. Played 4 seasons for Frank. Not drafted. Not rated out of high school.
ILL:
Dee Brown was a So. when oscar took over at Illinois. He played for oscar for 3 seasons. Drafted in the 2nd round of 06. He was the #19 rsci rated player in his class out of high school.
Deron Williams was a So. He played 2 seasons for oscar. Drafted #3 overall in 05. #48 rsci
James Augustine was a So. when oscar started. Played 3 seasons for oscar. Drafted in the 2nd round in 06. #78 rsci
Luther Head was a Jr in oscar's first season. He played 2 seasons with oscar. Drafted #24 overall in 05. Fringy top 100 h.s. recruit (did not make rsci top 100).
Roger Powell Jr. was a Jr. when oscar took over. Stayed 2 seasons. Not drafted. #62 rsci.
Nick Smith was a Jr. Played 2 seasons with oscar. Not drafted. #77 rsci.
Rich McBride was a frosh. Played 4 seasons. Not drafted. #28 rsci.
Brian Randle was a frosh. Played 4 seasons. Not drafted. #53 rsci.
Jack Ingram was a jr playing his first season at Ill after a transfer from Tulsa. Played 2 seasons for oscar. Not drafted. Not ranked coming out of high school.
Aaron Spears was a SO. Played 1 season with oscar before transfering to St. Johns. Not drafted. #86 rsci.
Warren Carter was a frosh. Played 4 seasons for oscar. Not drafted. Fringy top 100 player (made several lists, rsci not one of them).
oscar Weber took over a program and in his first season was coaching 8 players rated in the top 100 of their class by rsci. Another 2 guys who were top 150 type players. Frank Martin took over a team with 3 top 100 rsci players, and another two top 150ish guys. On top of that, 2 of Frank Martin's 3 initial top 100 players left after 1 season (the two highest rated). oscar Weber lost 1 of his 8 top 100 players after his first season (the lowest rated of his 8). Both started with a top 5 NBA draft pick. oscar Weber started with 4 future NBA draft picks, Martin with 2. Both of Martin's NBA drafted players were with him one season. oscar Weber had all 4 of his NBA players for at least 2 seasons.
thanks. now take pullen, beasely and every other freshman from both schools except jamar off the list. they were all in highschool when the coaches took over and as we are now seeing, those players have to be rerecruited and often don't end up coming to the school.
Post by: Mr Bread on April 10, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
so basically, frank gets no credit for anything accomplished during any of his five seasons?
Frank gets a ton of credit for elevating the profile of the program. No question. His record speaks for itself. 4/5 NCAA tourneys. 20 win seasons. In the context of KSU basketball, his accomplishments were nothing short of a miracle.
But, Frank's history. He's not coming back. He's done. gonzo. yesterday's news.
The question is whether Weber can replicate the success that Frank had at K-State. In other words, can Weber take us to the NCAA tourney at a high rate, finish 3-5th in Conference, win 20 wins on a consistent basis, and recruit top 150 talent.
Some on this board state emphatically that the answer is NO. No way in Hell can this Weber loser come even close to the aformentioned criteria. But, Weber's track record disproves that.
Anybody can manipluate numbers to prove their point. I think the only fair assessment is to look at the entire body of work, not just the last 5 years, or the first 5 years, or the middle 5 years, or the first 3 years and middle 2 years + second to last year. It doesn't work like that.
Weber had 2 dog crap years in his 14 year career. That's a fact. '07-'08 and '11-'12. That's the negative. Nobody is disputing the shittiness of those season. They happened. They exist.
But, sandwiched between those 2 shitty seasons were 3 Frankesque 20+, top5, postseason tourney seasons. Preceding the first shitty season were 6 great 20+ seasons with 4 conference championships and 6 straight NCAA tourneys, including a championship appearance.
Again, you can manipulate the numbers to say that 2 out of his last 5 seasons sucked balls, and therefore he's a shitty coach 40% of the time. Another person could manipulate the numbers to say that he's only had 2 bad seasons in his last 11, and therefore he's a pretty damn good coach 82% of the time. Just depends on how you want to fit the numbers into your argument.
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
That wasn't really my point. I was just responding to all the posts about who was "inherited." But if you compare who was inherited, I bet Weber's Illinois team looks better. Weber also won two conference championships and went to the national championship game with those players. So, Frank had less NBA talent to work with -- and achieved much less. Not sure how you compare them...
Exactly. Weber inherited a talented, deep, and experienced team and rode them to a sweet 16 and then a championship game. At a university with a recent culture of winning, and a national (or close) reputation for doing so. A big fish school in a fabulous recruiting area. Proceeded to turn average to below average results over the next 7 seasons. After what should have been momentum building success.
Martin inherited a couple very talented players who were with him for one season, another top 100 rsci player, and a couple fringy top 150 guys who developed under his coaching into better players then their rankings out of high school suggested. At a university coming off a NIT season with nothing but crap for the 15 seasons prior. A school with 0 built in recruiting advantages. Proceeded to turn in above average BCS results over the next 4 seasons (after his TOP talent left).
I don't see how anyone can look at the two coaches in total and conclude that oscar Weber is anywhere near Frank Martin level. oscar Weber is clearly a step down. It's not even debatable and doing so makes anyone look foolish.
Post by: _33 on April 10, 2012, 05:33:27 PM
I guess I continue feelign compelled to clarify my position.
1) do I wish we still had Frank? yes.
2) do I think Frank was a good coach? yes.
3) do I think Frank was an excellent coach? no.
4) do I think Weber is a good coach? yes.
5) do I think Weber is an excellent coach? no.
Ultimately, I think Frank and Weber are pretty comparable 2nd tier coaches who have proven to win about the same number of games, finish about the same position in their respective conferences, with about the same level of postseason success. Frank has been to a higher percentage of NCAA tourneys. Weber has coached in higher level games. It's about a wash IMO, with the slight edge to Frank because I like him more.
I just don't waste my time wallowing in self-pity about our program rapidly devolving into the dark ages of Asbury basketball, because I think Weber has proven himself to be a bit better coach than that.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong. But, unlike a lot of people on this board, I actually hope I'm right about Weber.
Agree 100%.
And the hope that Weber fails because it will make K-State better thing doesn't make any sense to me.
I think this "burn it down" thing has been blown out of proportion by the Woolites, but I'll attempt to defend the rationale anyway:
I would rather oscar not fail at all, but I would rather him fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible while people still care than fail slowly like I expect him to.
KSU will have to take chances on coaching hires to achieve greatness no matter how good of shape the program is in, at least for the forseeable future. I'd rather get to that next "chance" sooner, rather than later.
Does that make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. Too bad all the "I just can't cheer against my cats" idiots will never understand it.
Post by: CHONGS on April 10, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
i think most people's problems with frank all go back to the huggins/cinci style of basketball. its not pretty in the way they want (on offense, most focus soley on offense).
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 05:36:15 PM
I think another "Frankesque" season includes playing to your seed in the NCAA tournament.
i think most people's problems with frank all go back to the huggins/cinci style of basketball. its not pretty in the way they want (on offense, most focus soley on offense).
backdoor cuts on defense
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 05:52:15 PM
I think another "Frankesque" season includes playing to your seed in the NCAA tournament.
i think most people's problems with frank all go back to the huggins/cinci style of basketball. its not pretty in the way they want (on offense, most focus soley on offense).
backdoor cuts on defense
That, or drive (watch the entire K-State team fly to the basketball) and kick (to the wide open driveway bomber).
Hey Frank . . . Fred Hoiberg says thanks!
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 05:54:19 PM
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on April 10, 2012, 05:56:10 PM
Weber inherited a talented, deep, and experienced team and rode them to a sweet 16 and then a championship game. At a university with a recent culture of winning, and a national (or close) reputation for doing so. A big fish school in a fabulous recruiting area. Proceeded to turn average to below average results over the next 7 seasons. After what should have been momentum building success.
Martin inherited a couple very talented players who were with him for one season, another top 100 rsci player, and a couple fringy top 150 guys who developed under his coaching into better players then their rankings out of high school suggested. At a university coming off a NIT season with nothing but crap for the 15 seasons prior. A school with 0 built in recruiting advantages. Proceeded to turn in above average BCS results over the next 4 seasons (after his TOP talent left).
I don't see how anyone can look at the two coaches in total and conclude that oscar Weber is anywhere near Frank Martin level. oscar Weber is clearly a step down. It's not even debatable and doing so makes anyone look foolish.
Okay, so first off, we're completely throwing out Weber building SIU and his 103 wins there, right? Because SIU was in the Missouri Valley Conference. Of course, the Mo Valley might be better than the Pac 12 ... but so stipulated. It's out.
Frankly, the winning "culture" at Illinois is overplayed in your comparison. Illinois shared 5 total conference titles from 1952 to 2003, when Weber arrived. Self was responsible for just getting two of them. Weber won two more. In fact, Weber won the first outright (not shared) title at Illinois since 1952. From 1952 to 2003 Illinois also went to 4 Elite Eights and 7 Sweet Sixteens. Self had also just gotten one of each of these. (Over that same time, KSU went to 5 MORE Elite Eights than Illinois and 7 MORE Sweet Sixteen than Illinois.)
Weber then took Illinois to its first ever appearance in a national championship game. Frankly, other than Self's magnificent three years at Illinois and Weber's even better first two years, Weber's last seven years are entirely in line with Illinois's culture. (Not "below average.") Weber won 20+ games in 5 of his last 7 years and had top four conference finishes in 4 of his last 7 years. This is above-average stuff, even throwing out his first two years at Illinois and his time at SIU.
As for Frank, he also is above average. After Beasley left, he won 20+ games every year, and finished in the top four in the conference and went to the NCAA 3 out of 4 four years.
Both coaches were actually trending downwards number-wise. Frank went from 2nd to 3rd to 5th in the conference and won less games each of his last 3 seasons. Weber won less games each of his last 4 seasons and went from 2nd to 5th to 4th to 9th in conference.
Does Frank come out better in this comparison? Yes, but only marginally. Does Weber look like a disastrous hire on parallel with Asbury and Wooldridge? No.
I just don't get the doom and gloom.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 05:57:07 PM
He doesn't suck at coaching. Point remains.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 05:59:24 PM
dax, what's your ITK saying about alleged Frank funny business that has us potentially up against it with the NCAA?
If that was truly legit, do you think South Carolina hires him?
I can say they've sniffed at the tree in the last 5 years, but they aren't going to get anywhere at this juncture IMO.
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:02:54 PM
Okay, so first off, we're completely throwing out Weber building SIU and his 103 wins there, right? Because SIU was in the Missouri Valley Conference. Of course, the Mo Valley might be better than the Pac 12 ... but so stipulated. It's out.
Frankly, the winning "culture" at Illinois is overplayed in your comparison. Illinois shared 5 total conference titles from 1952 to 2003, when Weber arrived. Self was responsible for just getting two of them. Weber won two more. In fact, Weber won the first outright (not shared) title at Illinois since 1952. From 1952 to 2003 Illinois also went to 4 Elite Eights and 7 Sweet Sixteens. Self had also just gotten one of each of these. (Over that same time, KSU went to 5 MORE Elite Eights than Illinois and 7 MORE Sweet Sixteen than Illinois.)
Weber then took Illinois to its first ever appearance in a national championship game. Frankly, other than Self's magnificent three years at Illinois and Weber's even better first two years, Weber's last seven years are entirely in line with Illinois's culture. (Not "below average.") Weber won 20+ games in 5 of his last 7 years and had top four conference finishes in 4 of his last 7 years. This is above-average stuff, even throwing out his first two years at Illinois and his time at SIU.
As for Frank, he also is above average. After Beasley left, he won 20+ games every year, and finished in the top four in the conference and went to the NCAA 3 out of 4 four years.
Both coaches were actually trending downwards number-wise. Frank went from 2nd to 3rd to 5th in the conference and won less games each of his last 3 seasons. Weber won less games each of his last 4 seasons and went from 2nd to 5th to 4th to 9th in conference.
Does Frank come out better in this comparison? Yes, but only marginally. Does Weber look like a disastrous hire on parallel with Asbury and Wooldridge? No.
I just don't get the doom and gloom.
It's not doom and gloom from my perspective. It's a step backward. A pretty obvious (imo) step backward. Is that what we want? Are we o.k. with that? The general opinion forming seems to be lets only hope it's a small step back so we can stay middle of the pack longer.
Post by: Fuktard on April 10, 2012, 06:03:48 PM
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:08:39 PM
If that was truly legit, do you think South Carolina hires him?
I can say they've sniffed at the tree in the last 5 years, but they aren't going to get anywhere at this juncture IMO.
So that part of the rational for pushing Frank out is AD propaganda from what you know? I have no ITK, so appreciate you sharing. Many who do like to be totally vague with what they do chose to share.
Stuff like that floating out (and CC is not the only one I've seen that from) makes the rest of it harder for me to buy.
Post by: wabash909 on April 10, 2012, 06:09:07 PM
That wasn't really my point. I was just responding to all the posts about who was "inherited." But if you compare who was inherited, I bet Weber's Illinois team looks better. Weber also won two conference championships and went to the national championship game with those players. So, Frank had less NBA talent to work with -- and achieved much less. Not sure how you compare them...
Exactly. Weber inherited a talented, deep, and experienced team and rode them to a sweet 16 and then a championship game. At a university with a recent culture of winning, and a national (or close) reputation for doing so. A big fish school in a fabulous recruiting area. Proceeded to turn average to below average results over the next 7 seasons. After what should have been momentum building success.
Martin inherited a couple very talented players who were with him for one season, another top 100 rsci player, and a couple fringy top 150 guys who developed under his coaching into better players then their rankings out of high school suggested. At a university coming off a NIT season with nothing but crap for the 15 seasons prior. A school with 0 built in recruiting advantages. Proceeded to turn in above average BCS results over the next 4 seasons (after his TOP talent left).
I don't see how anyone can look at the two coaches in total and conclude that oscar Weber is anywhere near Frank Martin level. oscar Weber is clearly a step down. It's not even debatable and doing so makes anyone look foolish.
Man, I read stuff like this and I'm back to square one.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 06:12:04 PM
Both coaches were actually trending downwards number-wise. Frank went from 2nd to 3rd to 5th in the conference and won less games each of his last 3 seasons. Weber won less games each of his last 4 seasons and went from 2nd to 5th to 4th to 9th in conference.
Does Frank come out better in this comparison? Yes, but only marginally. Does Weber look like a disastrous hire on parallel with Asbury and Wooldridge? No.
Marginally better? A big difference is that over the spans you are comparing (Frank's last 3, oscar's last 4), Frank won 5 NCAA tournament games, never missed the NCAA tourney, and had a conference record of 31-19. oscar won 1 NCAA tournament game, missed the NCAA tournament twice, and had a conference record of 36-36.
And frank is marginally better? Really?
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on April 10, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
Okay, so first off, we're completely throwing out Weber building SIU and his 103 wins there, right? Because SIU was in the Missouri Valley Conference. Of course, the Mo Valley might be better than the Pac 12 ... but so stipulated. It's out.
Frankly, the winning "culture" at Illinois is overplayed in your comparison. Illinois shared 5 total conference titles from 1952 to 2003, when Weber arrived. Self was responsible for just getting two of them. Weber won two more. In fact, Weber won the first outright (not shared) title at Illinois since 1952. From 1952 to 2003 Illinois also went to 4 Elite Eights and 7 Sweet Sixteens. Self had also just gotten one of each of these. (Over that same time, KSU went to 5 MORE Elite Eights than Illinois and 7 MORE Sweet Sixteen than Illinois.)
Weber then took Illinois to its first ever appearance in a national championship game. Frankly, other than Self's magnificent three years at Illinois and Weber's even better first two years, Weber's last seven years are entirely in line with Illinois's culture. (Not "below average.") Weber won 20+ games in 5 of his last 7 years and had top four conference finishes in 4 of his last 7 years. This is above-average stuff, even throwing out his first two years at Illinois and his time at SIU.
As for Frank, he also is above average. After Beasley left, he won 20+ games every year, and finished in the top four in the conference and went to the NCAA 3 out of 4 four years.
Both coaches were actually trending downwards number-wise. Frank went from 2nd to 3rd to 5th in the conference and won less games each of his last 3 seasons. Weber won less games each of his last 4 seasons and went from 2nd to 5th to 4th to 9th in conference.
Does Frank come out better in this comparison? Yes, but only marginally. Does Weber look like a disastrous hire on parallel with Asbury and Wooldridge? No.
I just don't get the doom and gloom.
It's not doom and gloom from my perspective. It's a step backward. A pretty obvious (imo) step backward. Is that what we want? Are we o.k. with that? The general opinion forming seems to be lets only hope it's a small step back so we can stay middle of the pack longer.
If you imagine the first seven years of Weber's career don't count (four conference championships, three sweet sixteens, national championship game appearance) -- then I admit it's a step back. But even then it's not the preposterous step back people seem to argue it is.
Post by: wetwillie on April 10, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:16:07 PM
but one thing we do know is that 3 players asked for and met with ADJC.
I may have missed that, but how do we know 3?
We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
What makes you suggest that?
Do you think that the entire basketball staff was either in on this rampant player abuse or oblivious to it? I can't get passed the fact that they all went with Frank when many had other options. If Frank has/had become so toxic with players why the hell would they choose to go to a dead end basketball program and sink their careers with his ship?
Post by: SdK on April 10, 2012, 06:18:03 PM
Now the kids hate their mother's boyfriend because he is nothing like daddy. All that they loved about daddy, the new bf lacks. The kids didn't hear all the late night bickering and the verbal barrage that was laid upon their mother, the cheating, etc.
So now they whine and complain to their mother and disrespect her new boyfriend. All the while putting their dad on a pedestal he didn't necessarily deserve. Daddy left you to start a new family with a woman half your mother's worth. Love your mother and her happiness. :)
Post by: CHONGS on April 10, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Mommy was in a shitty marriage. She made a hard decision and she divorced her abusive husband. As a knee jerk reaction she began dating someone who is the complete opposite.I have no doubt you think of Frank like a jilted lover.
Now the kids hate their mother's boyfriend because he is nothing like daddy. All that they loved about daddy, the new bf lacks. The kids didn't hear all the late night bickering and the verbal barrage that was laid upon their mother, the cheating, etc.
So now they whine and complain to their mother and disrespect her new boyfriend. All the while putting their dad on a pedestal he didn't necessarily deserve. Daddy left you to start a new family with a woman half your mother's worth. Love your mother and her happiness. :)
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
If you imagine the first seven years of Weber's career don't count (four conference championships, three sweet sixteens, national championship game appearance) -- then I admit it's a step back. But even then it's not the preposterous step back people seem to argue it is.
Yes, I tend to count more recent results heavier then past ones. Especially when you're talking 7-14 years ago. Even more so when the more recent years would be the ones you would logically expect to be the better.
I don't think preposterous was the word you were looking for there. It's a clear step back. We can keep arguing how big of one, it's keeping me entertained.
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:23:59 PM
Mommy was in a shitty marriage. She made a hard decision and she divorced her abusive husband. As a knee jerk reaction she began dating someone who is the complete opposite.
Now the kids hate their mother's boyfriend because he is nothing like daddy. All that they loved about daddy, the new bf lacks. The kids didn't hear all the late night bickering and the verbal barrage that was laid upon their mother, the cheating, etc.
So now they whine and complain to their mother and disrespect her new boyfriend. All the while putting their dad on a pedestal he didn't necessarily deserve. Daddy left you to start a new family with a woman half your mother's worth. Love your mother and her happiness. :)
Except in this example mommy is a bitch whore and daddy took us to Disney world all the time and bought us lots of cool crap. Plus he was well muscled and handsome and all your friends were jealous cause he was a bad ass. So even though you can see mommy is happier now, inside you'll always be resentful that she couldn't just shut up about his drinking and flirting and make do with what she had for your sake if nothing else. The new boy friend is also kind of a dork that you don't want to be seen in public with.
Post by: Fuktard on April 10, 2012, 06:45:25 PM
but one thing we do know is that 3 players asked for and met with ADJC.
I may have missed that, but how do we know 3?We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
What makes you suggest that?
Do you think that the entire basketball staff was either in on this rampant player abuse or oblivious to it? I can't get passed the fact that they all went with Frank when many had other options. If Frank has/had become so toxic with players why the hell would they choose to go to a dead end basketball program and sink their careers with his ship?
Please list the other options our assistant coaches had including the salaries they were offered. tia
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 06:52:11 PM
but one thing we do know is that 3 players asked for and met with ADJC.
I may have missed that, but how do we know 3?We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
What makes you suggest that?
Do you think that the entire basketball staff was either in on this rampant player abuse or oblivious to it? I can't get passed the fact that they all went with Frank when many had other options. If Frank has/had become so toxic with players why the hell would they choose to go to a dead end basketball program and sink their careers with his ship?
Please list the other options our assistant coaches had including the salaries they were offered. tia
It's pretty rare for entire staffs to blindly follow a head coach when he leaves. I mean, Underwood, Assaley, and Greenawalt stuck around for Frank when he was an unproven high school coach. Maybe they got offered more money to stay back then, who knows?
Lamont may have had some trouble finding a new full-time assistant job, so I can see him following a lunatic doomed for failure. But Underwood and Figger would have been able to land on their feet without question. The fact that EVERYONE went without even seeing who KSU was going to hire speaks volumes about how the player abuse/mutiny rumor is complete bullshit.
Post by: naturalselection on April 10, 2012, 06:54:33 PM
Please list the other options our assistant coaches had including the salaries they were offered. tia
Kinda making my point. Scott didn't even look around. You don't think he could have stayed here? Or gone to a number of other BCS jobs? That dude is a rock star as far as S&C coaches go.
Allegedly we tried (halfheartedly maybe) to keep Brad. Though that's coming from our AD, so I will grant you that we have no idea the level of truthiness there.
I didn't hear any of the other guys (aside from Brad) made any other inquires. Sure, having a job is better then not having one. Still, if Frank is a mad man that was about to destroy his program at KSU, you don't think any of them would look around before they followed him to a lesser program?
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
Weber is probably going to meh us to death,everyone knows that,John deserves all the hate. We aren't going to get rid of oscar until his failures are actually realized. Currie won this round, just need to be ready for the next round. Might as well enjoy this year and maybe the next.
everyone doesn't know it though wetwillie. that's the point of the past ten pages.
Post by: puniraptor on April 10, 2012, 07:25:20 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 07:36:44 PM
I understand BURN IT DOWN, but I just can't pull it off. Best I can do is wear fire currie shirts to cheer on my cats probably.
i mean i don't think i can really do it either. like i can't actively cheer for next years team to lose or anything. my god i just love those guys way, way too much. i can hedge my bets though. and i can make fun of weber and point out how horrible he is at every given opportunity. and if angel doesn't come back, then the year after this year all bets are off.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 07:37:20 PM
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Post by: wetwillie on April 10, 2012, 07:48:50 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
Finishing in the top four of the conference is the ticket, essentially a lock for the tourney considering the strength of our league. Judging oscar on league record should be what we do. If he puts together anything worse than 9-9 at any point in time I don't think he has any right to be retained.
Post by: MakeItRain on April 10, 2012, 07:54:23 PM
Why are people calling the round of 32 "the third round"? Frank had a great track record and won tons of games, no need to start using that kind of bullshit to perpetuate his success.
You can call it whatever the hell you want to call it but according to the NCAA and all non Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) media the third round is the round of 32. Stop being a rough ridin' moron no one is perpetuating anything, just being factually correct.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 08:00:32 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
also and mainly just to squash any potential back and forth, a fourth place finish in conference when frank was coaching (12 teams) is equal to a third place finish (10 teams) moving forward. just saving time. now answer the rest.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
If that was truly legit, do you think South Carolina hires him?
I can say they've sniffed at the tree in the last 5 years, but they aren't going to get anywhere at this juncture IMO.
So that part of the rational for pushing Frank out is AD propaganda from what you know? I have no ITK, so appreciate you sharing. Many who do like to be totally vague with what they do chose to share.
Stuff like that floating out (and CC is not the only one I've seen that from) makes the rest of it harder for me to buy.
The only thing I I ever heard directly related to Frank that COULD be construed as eyebrow raising is Frank giving money to former players.
Post by: michigancat on April 10, 2012, 08:04:36 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
That is clearly worse than Frank and he should be fired after the fifth season in that scenario. I also think your hypothetical is pretty close to oscar's ceiling @ KSU.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 08:10:51 PM
Post by: kst8cat on April 10, 2012, 08:13:41 PM
all of you people pining for Frank are delusional. I'm telling you Frank as our coach next year was NOT an option. Daris, you asked for facts. We don't have a lot as _Fan alluded to (lots of rumors), but one thing we do know is that 3 players asked for and met with ADJC. We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub. So basically 1/3 of the team made a point to meet with Currie (rumors would put the number at more than half). Can you imagine 15 football players off the 2 deep meeting with the AD? How many D1 players EVER meet with the AD? We had a mutiny. Frank was NOT coming back, and, IMHO, we didn't want him to.
What I have heard about the player mutiny is that one time during practice, Frank got so mad that he literally rushed at and tackled one of the players on the court (my source seems to think that player was Thomas Gipson). That was the breaking point and right after that is when multiple players met with Currie and said they were leaving if Frank is here next year. It is second-hand information and could be untrue, so take it as nothing more than a rumor if you like. But if it turns out later to be true, then I want to take full credit. ;)
Post by: Kat Kid on April 10, 2012, 08:14:59 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
That is clearly worse than Frank and he should be fired after the fifth season in that scenario. I also think your hypothetical is pretty close to oscar's ceiling @ KSU.
I absolutely agree with michigancat here and I eagerly await anyone defending that resume. It isn't "basically" Frank. It is clearly worse. It isn't acceptable, it is fireable.
It is one thing to say that we should "move on" and "Frank's gone" and "I'm hoping for the best" or even defending Weber as a possibly good replacement considering the circumstances. What is entirely predictable is that the same people doing this are tirelessly working to suppress expectations and have decided to either forget or to deny the success that Frank achieved and what that 1) should've meant when Currie was making the hire 2) what that means going forward for Weber's evaluation
Post by: MakeItRain on April 10, 2012, 08:22:00 PM
If that was truly legit, do you think South Carolina hires him?
I can say they've sniffed at the tree in the last 5 years, but they aren't going to get anywhere at this juncture IMO.
So that part of the rational for pushing Frank out is AD propaganda from what you know? I have no ITK, so appreciate you sharing. Many who do like to be totally vague with what they do chose to share.
Stuff like that floating out (and CC is not the only one I've seen that from) makes the rest of it harder for me to buy.
The only thing I I ever heard directly related to Frank that COULD be construed as eyebrow raising is Frank giving money to former players.
I hope that didn't come from your ITK source. Frank coached his last high school game seven years before he was a head coach at Kansas State. Giving money to people who are not NCAA athletes is not a NCAA matter. Frank did not have any former high schoolers playing college basketball while he was at K-State.
Post by: Cire on April 10, 2012, 08:45:08 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 08:49:21 PM
Hating weber has nothing to do with frank martin. I don't know why every body thinks that a tourney birth is a given next year either
if angel comes back then the worst coach in the world could coach this team into the tournament. if he doesn't then a top 100 coach could. either way, it's impossible not to make it. weber said it himself in the initial press conference. this is a sweet sixteen type team.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Post by: WillieWatanabe on April 10, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
That is clearly worse than Frank and he should be fired after the fifth season in that scenario. I also think your hypothetical is pretty close to oscar's ceiling @ KSU.
I agree 2 NITs in 5 years would be a fireable offense. But I can just hear the Goodman's of the media world starting the "who does KSU think they are?!" crap again.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 08:52:04 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 08:56:13 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
no it's not. there were 12 teams in the big12 when frank was coaching, so top 4 meant something different then it does moving forward. hint...i say this because there are only 10 teams now. hint...what if there were only six teams? hint...would top four be good if there were only four teams in the conference? tell me if you need me to explain this further. just as serious this time. although you didn't reply before, so...
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 08:58:40 PM
quick question...is it better to finish third in your league or ninth? hint...this is a trick question.
Post by: Barry McCockner on April 10, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Whenever you fools are ready to enlighten me, please tell me how my hypothetical stat sheet is "clearly worse" than Feanks tenure.
For one, it is clearly trending downward as his own players are filtering in.
Post by: Kat Kid on April 10, 2012, 09:01:52 PM
belvis-
quick question...is it better to finish third in you league or ninth? hint...this is a trick question.
See how much more fun this is than just face palming and pretending you won the argument? I hope many goEMAW'rs are taking note and watching.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 09:05:11 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
no it's not. there were 12 teams in the big12 when frank was coaching, so top 4 meant something different then it does moving forward. hint...i say this because there are only 10 teams now. hint...what if there were only six teams? hint...would top four be good if there were only four teams in the conference? tell me if you need me to explain this further. just as serious this time. although you didn't reply before, so...
12 teams when Frank was coaching. Except this past season. And he finished 5th out of 10. And went to the tourney.
Post by: The Whale on April 10, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
So, no season with 29 total wins?
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 09:09:54 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
no it's not. there were 12 teams in the big12 when frank was coaching, so top 4 meant something different then it does moving forward. hint...i say this because there are only 10 teams now. hint...what if there were only six teams? hint...would top four be good if there were only four teams in the conference? tell me if you need me to explain this further. just as serious this time. although you didn't reply before, so...
12 teams when Frank was coaching. Except this past season. And he finished 5th out of 10. And went to the tourney.
which brings me back to me asking you what oscar's first five year conf record will be. i know what franks was and i know what bruces was at illinois at the exact same time frank was as kstate. predicto?
Post by: chum1 on April 10, 2012, 09:11:19 PM
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 10, 2012, 09:24:53 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
no it's not. there were 12 teams in the big12 when frank was coaching, so top 4 meant something different then it does moving forward. hint...i say this because there are only 10 teams now. hint...what if there were only six teams? hint...would top four be good if there were only four teams in the conference? tell me if you need me to explain this further. just as serious this time. although you didn't reply before, so...
12 teams when Frank was coaching. Except this past season. And he finished 5th out of 10. And went to the tourney.
which brings me back to me asking you what oscar's first five year conf record will be. i know what franks was and i know what bruces was at illinois at the exact same time frank was as kstate. predicto?
2 conf Ws better than last season. Finish 2 spots higher in conference at 3rd. 5 seed in NCAA. Or in other words, exactly where we'd be with Frank.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 10, 2012, 09:28:23 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball.
no it's not. also, i don't care about overall wins. what would weber's conf record be in the above?
Yes it is. Trade 1 NIT for an NCAA and add 1 win to the 19 W season and you have EXACTLY Frank Martin basketball. Hence the "give or take" qualifier. Stop being intentionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
no it's not. there were 12 teams in the big12 when frank was coaching, so top 4 meant something different then it does moving forward. hint...i say this because there are only 10 teams now. hint...what if there were only six teams? hint...would top four be good if there were only four teams in the conference? tell me if you need me to explain this further. just as serious this time. although you didn't reply before, so...
12 teams when Frank was coaching. Except this past season. And he finished 5th out of 10. And went to the tourney.
which brings me back to me asking you what oscar's first five year conf record will be. i know what franks was and i know what bruces was at illinois at the exact same time frank was as kstate. predicto?
2 conf Ws better than last season. Finish 2 spots higher in conference at 3rd. 5 seed in NCAA. Or in other words, exactly where we'd be with Frank.
my fault (seriously). i worded that poorly. what do you think oscar's conf record will be after five years?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 10, 2012, 09:29:58 PM
If that was truly legit, do you think South Carolina hires him?
I can say they've sniffed at the tree in the last 5 years, but they aren't going to get anywhere at this juncture IMO.
So that part of the rational for pushing Frank out is AD propaganda from what you know? I have no ITK, so appreciate you sharing. Many who do like to be totally vague with what they do chose to share.
Stuff like that floating out (and CC is not the only one I've seen that from) makes the rest of it harder for me to buy.
The only thing I I ever heard directly related to Frank that COULD be construed as eyebrow raising is Frank giving money to former players.
I hope that didn't come from your ITK source. Frank coached his last high school game seven years before he was a head coach at Kansas State. Giving money to people who are not NCAA athletes is not a NCAA matter. Frank did not have any former high schoolers playing college basketball while he was at K-State.
No it did not come from an ITK, I only caught that on some message board discussion.
Post by: Christer on April 10, 2012, 09:31:26 PM
We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
There were 4 players planning on transfering. They were Will, Shane, Omari, and Nino.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on April 10, 2012, 09:35:09 PM
We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
There were 4 players planning on transfering. They were Will, Shane, Omari, and Nino.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
and JO.... some rumors on Gip
Post by: MakeItRain on April 10, 2012, 10:01:08 PM
We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
There were 4 players planning on transfering. They were Will, Shane, Omari, and Nino.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
and JO.... some rumors on Gip
It was everybody including Shawn Meyer. Frank turned into a different guy than the one who called Jake the most selfish [redacted] in the history of college basketball four years ago. Frank isn't the same guy who recruited and previously coached these guys, he's mean now.
Post by: Trim on April 10, 2012, 10:18:26 PM
Post by: kim carnes on April 10, 2012, 10:35:42 PM
Post by: yosh on April 10, 2012, 10:38:34 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
I'll play AD. The bar is set at 3 NCAAs in 4 years, no less than an NIT in the fourth year and competing for the league title at least once every four years. I have heard this standard many times on this board (Rusty included I believe) and it's better than what happened in the Huggins/Martin 6 year run. Weber meets this criteria in his first four years, and I can't let my coach go into his 5th and final year without an extension, so tack three years onto the end of the original 5 year with a low buyout for making the minimum standard. It gets a bit tricky after year 5. If you say that you are now into the second 4 years, he's already used up his non-NCAA year. So you have to make a judgement call. Do you realistically see 3 straight NCAAs? Young roster with lots of key players coming back? Elite class coming in? If not, pull the trigger and can his ass. If so, let him know, privately, that another NIT won't be acceptable within his remaining contract.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 12:57:12 AM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
I'll play AD. The bar is set at 3 NCAAs in 4 years, no less than an NIT in the fourth year and competing for the league title at least once every four years. I have heard this standard many times on this board (Rusty included I believe) and it's better than what happened in the Huggins/Martin 6 year run. Weber meets this criteria in his first four years, and I can't let my coach go into his 5th and final year without an extension, so tack three years onto the end of the original 5 year with a low buyout for making the minimum standard. It gets a bit tricky after year 5. If you say that you are now into the second 4 years, he's already used up his non-NCAA year. So you have to make a judgement call. Do you realistically see 3 straight NCAAs? Young roster with lots of key players coming back? Elite class coming in? If not, pull the trigger and can his ass. If so, let him know, privately, that another NIT won't be acceptable within his remaining contract.
I said NCAA tourney 4 out of 5 years is fine no matter what. When you are worse than that, which this hypothetical clearly is, you better have a damn good reason to retain him. I'm not sure a last-gasp elite class would be enough even if it was likely. 0 tourney wins and just one appearance in three years is pretty bad.
also, it's ridiculous to compare those results to the Huggins-Martin era. Not only are they worse in a vacuum, but they are FAR worse when you consider the rosters and overall health of the programs when each started.
Post by: Cire on April 11, 2012, 06:09:56 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 08:02:59 AM
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 08:21:35 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 08:32:15 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 08:36:53 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 08:40:27 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 08:41:49 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Post by: puniraptor on April 11, 2012, 08:46:14 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 08:58:52 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two of my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Post by: ben ji on April 11, 2012, 08:59:57 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
Man o man, I read goEMAW too much. Everytime I see or hear anything about burning bridges I immediately think
"May the bridges I burn light the way"
Post by: Cire on April 11, 2012, 09:06:54 AM
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 09:07:49 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 09:08:35 AM
Man o man, I read goEMAW too much. Everytime I see or hear anything about burning bridges I immediately think
"May the bridges I burn light the way"
Panjandrum said it on koppe's podcast the other night and didn't even realize it. :excited:
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 09:10:14 AM
Where do I think Weber's conference record will be in 5 years...
I think we'll be above .550 - .600 conseratively. Assuming an 18 game schedule, and having no idea who our coaching staff or recruiting classes will be...
'12 - 13-5 NCAA
'13 - 8-10 NIT
'14 - 9-9 NCAA/NIT
'15 - 10-8 NCAA
'16 - 10-8 NCAA
50 - 40 conference.
Obviously, these numbers could change pretty dramatically. If Angel transfers, I don't see us going 13-5 in year 1. If we line up Jerrance Howard and lock up some high caliber talent, maybe we don't take a big step back in year 2. Then again, maybe losing Gruds, JO, Irving, etc. was going to cause a big step back in '13 no matter who the coach was. I don't know.
Just so people can really clarify the absurdity, the above record of 50-40 is a mere 4-5 conference wins lower (as a %) than what Martin achieved at K-State. And it seems that most would categorize this record as an abject failure.
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 09:11:01 AM
If I start a "Doc Spradler, This Is Your Life!" thread, do you think we could eventually get all the ITK sources to post here?
i think winters started that one yesterday
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 09:11:53 AM
I agree that martin likely burned kc bridges, but wtf have we gotten from there anyway? success of the program has nothing to do with success with kc kids.
2 highly touted recruits who were very interested in K-State ended up, or would have ended up elsewhere for pretty much one reason . . . and LOL at Frank for supposedly being pissed and thinking that an AAU coach was steering kids elsewhere. When first hand information gets back to an AAU coach that a college basketball coach has become an abusive dickhole 24/7, what does the college basketball coach expect to happen?
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
I agree that martin likely burned kc bridges, but wtf have we gotten from there anyway? success of the program has nothing to do with success with kc kids.
2 highly touted recruits who were very interested in K-State ended up, or would have ended up elsewhere for pretty much one reason . . . and LOL at Frank for supposedly being pissed and thinking that an AAU coach was steering kids elsewhere. When first hand information gets back to an AAU coach that a college basketball coach has become an abusive dickhole 24/7, what does the college basketball coach expect to happen?
frank didn't expect anything to happen. he felt he didn't need suther or his kids. that's how rough ridin' lost he became.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 09:18:36 AM
I agree that martin likely burned kc bridges, but wtf have we gotten from there anyway?
Willie Cauley and Semi Ojeleye.
The question isn't what have we gotten. The question is what have we lost.
Post by: Cire on April 11, 2012, 09:19:04 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 11, 2012, 09:19:52 AM
Cauley hated us.Do you blame him?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 09:21:13 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Post by: WillieWatanabe on April 11, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 09:29:29 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Stick to recipes Piss.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 11, 2012, 09:34:35 AM
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 09:39:40 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Post by: chum1 on April 11, 2012, 09:44:02 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 09:58:17 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 10:06:41 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Bell. Money. 'clams. Next?
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 10:08:33 AM
weber sucks.
weber rough ridin' sucks.
lowery rough ridin' worse than weber = sucks really bad.
i can't blame frank for leaving, i wouldn't want to work with weber either.
weber = joke
frank = pariah
currie = needs to be fired
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 10:10:05 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Bell. Money. 'clams. Next?
Cheat better, pay more, less weird, less paranoid, better PR, back off Frank being Frank at times. Pretty much leaves the Currie issue, less Frank being Frank gives Currie less ammo to make his case and get support from Schulz. Frank still our coach.
The end.
Post by: Skipper44 on April 11, 2012, 10:10:31 AM
:confused:I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Bell. Money. 'clams. Next?
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 10:10:33 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Beasley and Bell. and if a dried up MOKAN pipeline caused by Frank being a dickhead cost us Cauley, it's interesting that we're just hearing about it now.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 10:13:08 AM
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Beasley and Bell. and if a dried up MOKAN pipeline caused by Frank being a dickhead cost us Cauley, it's interesting that we're just hearing about it now.
It sure is interesting.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:14:20 AM
Beasley and Bell. and if a dried up MOKAN pipeline caused by Frank being a dickhead cost us Cauley, it's interesting that we're just hearing about it now.
I first heard about it when Cauley declared for Kentucky. But, to my credit, I'm ITK.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 10:16:23 AM
Post by: sys on April 11, 2012, 10:21:28 AM
I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc.
i'm glad you didn't high five him, trim. he is a treacherous coward.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:22:45 AM
At the time, we weren't pleased, as I recall. Now, today, that we've shifted all hatred to Currie/Weber and Frank has attained immortal status at KSU, it seems like FBF was just fine and all of the players/recruits were just pussies.
Again, I'm confused.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 10:29:34 AM
Color me confused. 4/5 NCAAs is perfectly acceptable by any standards but 3/5 NCAAs is unequivocally, absolutely fireable. Hell, even Frank, the gold standard, the best, platinum club coach we've ever had was a 4/5 NCAA coach.
Who said Frank was the gold standard? I said 4 out of 5 was acceptable indefinitely, and I'd consider less. Under your example, the NCAA tourney was missed 2 out of 3 years. If it was the first and the last season that were missed, I might not consider firing the guy.
I think we'll be above .550 - .600 conseratively. Assuming an 18 game schedule, and having no idea who our coaching staff or recruiting classes will be...
'12 - 13-5 NCAA
'13 - 8-10 NIT
'14 - 9-9 NCAA/NIT
'15 - 10-8 NCAA
'16 - 10-8 NCAA
50 - 40 conference.
Obviously, these numbers could change pretty dramatically. If Angel transfers, I don't see us going 13-5 in year 1. If we line up Jerrance Howard and lock up some high caliber talent, maybe we don't take a big step back in year 2.
I would be fine with that timeline. I'm not sure why you think a conservative guess of Weber's conference record here would be better than it was at Illinois, but whatever.
the question is, do you hold Weber accountable for losing Angel and Howard, or does that give him lower expectations from Day 1?
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 10:30:27 AM
Btw, we're all in agreement that FBF (frank being frank) cost us Semi. the only real debate is whether EMAWs are supposed to care that FBF scared off recruits.
At the time, we weren't pleased, as I recall. Now, today, that we've shifted all hatred to Currie/Weber and Frank has attained immortal status at KSU, it seems like FBF was just fine and all of the players/recruits were just pussies.
Again, I'm confused.
You're confused easily.
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 10:36:38 AM
:confused:I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
OK, so we can stop with "if posts on gpc are to be believed". It's not posts on gpc or fuktard's post a page or 2 back that is to be believed. It's if Doc's parents and coaches are to be believed. And maybe they are. I personally don't know where to draw the line between no high-fives and burning houses down when it comes to Doc. But it's not 100 people with their own independent "Frank's a psycho" story.
Why did DC Assault dry up? Dalonte? Manhattan, KS? Probably a good starting place, but it went from a pretty strong pipeline to nothing almost over night.
Bell. Money. 'clams. Next?
i had the chance to repair the relationship, but choose not to.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:37:15 AM
the question is, do you hold Weber accountable for losing Angel and Howard, or does that give him lower expectations from Day 1?
Do you hold Weber accountable for keeping Deron Williams and Dee Brown at Illinois after Self left?
My answer would be yes, I hold Weber accountable for not convincing Angel to stay. Naturally, logically, and rationally, I also give him credit for convincing Dee Brown and Deron Williams to stay at Illinois. I give him even more credit for convincing them to stay for two (2) seasons, resulting in the championship run.
Of course, it's much more convenient to argue that Weber had nothing to do with Williams/Brown staying but Weber has everything to do with Angel leaving.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
Color me confused. 4/5 NCAAs is perfectly acceptable by any standards but 3/5 NCAAs is unequivocally, absolutely fireable. Hell, even Frank, the gold standard, the best, platinum club coach we've ever had was a 4/5 NCAA coach.
Who said Frank was the gold standard? I said 4 out of 5 was acceptable indefinitely, and I'd consider less. Under your example, the NCAA tourney was missed 2 out of 3 years. If it was the first and the last season that were missed, I might not consider firing the guy.
This is a good post.
I don't plan to lower/change expectations, but I'm glad you're reasonable enough to believe that 3/5 NCAAs may or may not be fireable. The major thing to look at is direction of the program and I think at K-State a year or two of rebuilding should be allowable. But those years should be near .500 in the league and on the bubble for most of the year. The biggest concern with Weber is he has shown the ability to have terrible seasons in league with a .278 year and a .333 year. Those are huge concerns and will call for immediate heat. IMO you might allow one more year, but if the next season doesn't result in an NCAA birth, ties must be cut. And if a coach has 2 of those during his tenure, you move on.
Just looking at Weber's tenure at Illinois, I wouldn't have fired him after his 5th season, but partially because his first 4 years gave him some leverage. And after first terrible season, he finished tied for 2nd in the Big 10, so he redeemed himself. Even years 7 and 8 would've been tough to fire him, but clearly I understand why he was fired after last year, and if he repeats that at K-State he should be fired again.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:42:19 AM
You're confused easily.
I know right?
"Frank's profile was consistent NCAAs, 20+ wins and 3rd-5th in Conference. A "Frankesque" season." - Belvis.
Michigantard interpretation of above post: "'20 wins', '5th place' and 'postseason.'"
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 10:50:07 AM
the question is, do you hold Weber accountable for losing Angel and Howard, or does that give him lower expectations from Day 1?
Do you hold Weber accountable for keeping Deron Williams and Dee Brown at Illinois after Self left?
My answer would be yes, I hold Weber accountable for not convincing Angel to stay. Naturally, logically, and rationally, I also give him credit for convincing Dee Brown and Deron Williams to stay at Illinois. I give him even more credit for convincing them to stay for two (2) seasons, resulting in the championship run.
Of course, it's much more convenient to argue that Weber had nothing to do with Williams/Brown staying but Weber has everything to do with Angel leaving.
Let's be clear: oscar definitely deserves credit for retaining Head, Brown, and Williams, as well as the great tournament run. I just don't think those things are relevant items to use when predicting his long-term success at KSU.
I also don't think losing or keeping Angel will have anything to do with his long-term success at KSU - I only think losing Angel will give Weber some nice low expectations for the next 3 years or so.
Post by: 8manpick on April 11, 2012, 10:52:51 AM
1 CBI / missed postseason - fired
Look, I'm not really excited about Weber, but that has nothing to do with what our expectations should be. Expectations shouldn't change based on a new coach, the coach should change if he doesn't meet expectations. I would be very disappointed if we made 2 NITs in the next 5 years, especially because it would likely be 2 in the last 4 or 2 in the last 3 which is not good, and not acceptable.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:54:43 AM
Let's be clear: oscar definitely deserves credit for retaining Head, Brown, and Williams, as well as the great tournament run. I just don't think those things are relevant items to use when predicting his long-term success at KSU.
I also don't think losing or keeping Angel will have anything to do with his long-term success at KSU - I only think losing Angel will give Weber some nice low expectations for the next 3 years or so.
Let's be clear, your question was "do you hold Weber accountable for losing Angel and Howard, or does that give him lower expectations from Day 1?"
I answered your question.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 10:58:32 AM
I also don't think losing or keeping Angel will have anything to do with his long-term success at KSU - I only think losing Angel will give Weber some nice low expectations for the next 3 years or so.
Angel has a lot to do with his long-term success at KSU, IMO. If he loses Angel, we have no PG and '12-'13 could be a disaster. '13'-'14 could be a disaster b/c we lose the core nucleus of our team.
Absent some high profile infusion of talent in the program, Weber could be gone after 2 disaster years. Unfortunately, it seems like most on this board are hoping desperately for said disaster so that they can say "I told you so."
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 11, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 11:00:28 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Stick to recipes Piss.
i was kidding, you dumbass.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 11:01:36 AM
Post by: LickNeckey on April 11, 2012, 11:12:04 AM
I also don't think losing or keeping Angel will have anything to do with his long-term success at KSU - I only think losing Angel will give Weber some nice low expectations for the next 3 years or so.
Angel has a lot to do with his long-term success at KSU, IMO. If he loses Angel, we have no PG and '12-'13 could be a disaster. '13'-'14 could be a disaster b/c we lose the core nucleus of our team.
Absent some high profile infusion of talent in the program, Weber could be gone after 2 disaster years. Unfortunately, it seems like most on this board are hoping desperately for said disaster so that they can say "I told you so."
This isn't an "I told you so"
It's a thank god lets get the program back on track
Post by: SdK on April 11, 2012, 11:15:55 AM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
Man o man, I read goEMAW too much. Everytime I see or hear anything about burning bridges I immediately think
"May the bridges I burn light the way"
I have used this line twice a week since Trim, I believe, posted the youtube link. I should probably stop burning bridges.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 11:17:12 AM
This isn't an "I told you so"
It's a thank god lets get the program back on track
ok
:facepalm:
Post by: catzacker on April 11, 2012, 11:36:56 AM
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 11:39:38 AM
I also don't think losing or keeping Angel will have anything to do with his long-term success at KSU - I only think losing Angel will give Weber some nice low expectations for the next 3 years or so.
Angel has a lot to do with his long-term success at KSU, IMO. If he loses Angel, we have no PG and '12-'13 could be a disaster. '13'-'14 could be a disaster b/c we lose the core nucleus of our team.
Absent some high profile infusion of talent in the program, Weber could be gone after 2 disaster years.
Do you really think he would be gone after 2 years? Do you think that would be fair?
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 11:48:41 AM
ok, i'll say this knowing that it isn't a perfect analogy, but should I have "cheered" for Wooly to make the NIT in his final season? What about the season before that? I hated it when Wooly beat a ranked UT team at home with the hundreds of fans rushing the court. It was absurdly meaningless, yet served to some/most as some kind of marker for future success.
Wooly comparos are imperfect by nature. Dude's arguably the worst DI coach in the game for the past 20 years.
Notwithstanding, you should have cheered him to make the NCAA in his first season. Once Wooly proved his ability to us, or lack thereof, cheering him past year 1 was no longer warranted.
Clearly, this isn't where we're at with Weber. clearly, right? Is this really being debated? Are the Asbury/Wooly comparos serious? I assumed they were gross exagerations. But, you guys keep making the comparos, so now I'm getting worried.
Weber can coach. This much is not debatable. Weber has a good returning team. This much is not debatable. Weber has proven he can do good things with good teams. This much is not debatable.
So, serious question, why the eff aren't we supporting this dude and hoping for a deep NCAA run next year? Because it's possible that we'll suck in 5 years?
When we re-hired Snyder (after a Weberesque end to his first tenure), it was a definite possibility that we'd suck balls. And we may suck again in 5 years. Yet, I found myself at 5 home games this past season and packing it to DFW for the Cotton Bowl. Moral of the story - give the guy a rough ridin' chance. Sometimes it's good to not be a whiny bitch all the time and just enjoy some sporting events.
Post by: catzacker on April 11, 2012, 11:56:44 AM
Post by: _33 on April 11, 2012, 11:57:10 AM
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
Wooly comparos are imperfect by nature. Dude's arguably the worst DI coach in the game for the past 20 years.
Notwithstanding, you should have cheered him to make the NCAA in his first season. Once Wooly proved his ability to us, or lack thereof, cheering him past year 1 was no longer warranted.
Clearly, this isn't where we're at with Weber. clearly, right? Is this really being debated? Are the Asbury/Wooly comparos serious? I assumed they were gross exagerations. But, you guys keep making the comparos, so now I'm getting worried.
Weber can coach. This much is not debatable. Weber has a good returning team. This much is not debatable. Weber has proven he can do good things with good teams. This much is not debatable.
So, serious question, why the eff aren't we supporting this dude and hoping for a deep NCAA run next year? Because it's possible that we'll suck in 5 years?
When we re-hired Snyder (after a Weberesque end to his first tenure), it was a definite possibility that we'd suck balls. And we may suck again in 5 years. Yet, I found myself at 5 home games this past season and packing it to DFW for the Cotton Bowl. Moral of the story - give the guy a rough ridin' chance. Sometimes it's good to not be a whiny bitch all the time and just enjoy some sporting events.
I can take some of the blame here, I originally brought up the Asbury and Wooldridge comparison and it was wrong and not really fair. He certainly has done nothing to show he's nearly as bad as Wooly, not even close. And the Asbury comparison was a reach simply because he lost a team, but he didn't quit on a program like Asbury did. I was part of the problem with Wooly, I'll readily admit that. He clearly should've been fired after year 3 (and maybe year 2), you can't let a coach flounder at a below .500 level for more than a couple years. I was a stupid fan at the time, very dumb, and I gave him too many excuses and too much patience. I won't make that mistake as a fan again, at the end of the day if you show you can't win games at this level you need to move on or be let go. It doesn't matter if you are likable or not, or at least it shouldn't.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 11:58:19 AM
Do you really think he would be gone after 2 years? Do you think that would be fair?
Depends on what happens in 2 years and what he has returning in year 3.
If we miss the postseason, entirely, in years 1 or 2, I think it'd be fair to terminate him. The last thing we can afford (especially when we're flush with $$$) is to return to bball indifference.
If he goes to an NCAA, and NIT in yrs1 and 2, I think it's be grossly unfair to terminate him outright. Remember, that's what Frank did.
His recruiting will also be a factor to consider. Hard to say what should or shouldn't happen in 3-4 years because we don't know anything about staff, players, or recruits. I guess, this is ultimately my point. We don't know. Accordingly, I think it's a bit premature to throw him under the bus. If he had a Wooly or Asbury track record, I could understand the preemptive strike. But, Weber ain't Wooly.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 11, 2012, 11:59:17 AM
ok, i'll say this knowing that it isn't a perfect analogy, but should I have "cheered" for Wooly to make the NIT in his final season? What about the season before that? I hated it when Wooly beat a ranked UT team at home with the hundreds of fans rushing the court. It was absurdly meaningless, yet served to some/most as some kind of marker for future success.
Wooly comparos are imperfect by nature. Dude's arguably the worst DI coach in the game for the past 20 years.
Notwithstanding, you should have cheered him to make the NCAA in his first season. Once Wooly proved his ability to us, or lack thereof, cheering him past year 1 was no longer warranted.
Clearly, this isn't where we're at with Weber. clearly, right? Is this really being debated? Are the Asbury/Wooly comparos serious? I assumed they were gross exagerations. But, you guys keep making the comparos, so now I'm getting worried.
Weber can coach. This much is not debatable. Weber has a good returning team. This much is not debatable. Weber has proven he can do good things with good teams. This much is not debatable.
So, serious question, why the eff aren't we supporting this dude and hoping for a deep NCAA run next year? Because it's possible that we'll suck in 5 years?
When we re-hired Snyder (after a Weberesque end to his first tenure), it was a definite possibility that we'd suck balls. And we may suck again in 5 years. Yet, I found myself at 5 home games this past season and packing it to DFW for the Cotton Bowl. Moral of the story - give the guy a rough ridin' chance. Sometimes it's good to not be a whiny bitch all the time and just enjoy some sporting events.
NO, eff You
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 11:59:24 AM
our roster is nowhere near the roster he took over at Illinois.
And, again, we've never accomplished anywhere near what Weber accomplished with that Illini roster.
Post by: CNS on April 11, 2012, 12:00:27 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
our roster is nowhere near the roster he took over at Illinois. he has proven at illinois (the only comparable place in his head coaching career to ksu) that he will fail. that he'll turn whatever he has into a failure.
This. Illinois was his chance, and he got fired for losing.
There is nothing about the Kansas State job that should make a rational person think he will do better here.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
Belvis Noland, why are you taking such a passionate stance on this? Seems like an incredibly stupid thing to care so much about.
As a guy who's had season tix since Huggs took over and who's been to every tournament appearance (BigXII, NCAA) in the region, I guess I'm just passionate about KSU basketball. eff me, maybe I shouldn't be.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 12:05:38 PM
But, Weber ain't Wooly.
Agreed - he's Mike Davis.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 12:07:39 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ksu/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/Bruce_Weber_Contract.pdf
Post by: catzacker on April 11, 2012, 12:08:26 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
our roster is nowhere near the roster he took over at Illinois. he has proven at illinois (the only comparable place in his head coaching career to ksu) that he will fail. that he'll turn whatever he has into a failure.
This. Illinois was his chance, and he got fired for losing.
There is nothing about the Kansas State job that should make a rational person think he will do better here.
the biggest problem is that our fans are rational and don't expect him to do any better, but are also simultaneously ok w/ it. give him a chance guys! let's see what he can do guys! guys we don't even know who his assistants are! guys let's see how this all plays out first before we judge! umm, no. why? i've already seen it play out. no need to watch the same movie twice.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 12:15:22 PM
the biggest problem is that our fans are rational and don't expect him to do any better, but are also simultaneously ok w/ it. give him a chance guys! let's see what he can do guys! guys we don't even know who his assistants are! guys let's see how this all plays out first before we judge! umm, no. why? i've already seen it play out. no need to watch the same movie twice.
I certainly expect him to do better.
I expect him to not repeat what got him fired at Illinois; two dreadful conference seasons where he finished .278 and .333. Illinois gave him a fair chance after the first one and he responded with 3 pretty decent seasons after that. It was the 2nd one that got him fired and if he does that at K-State he should be fired too. I see the caution in thinking that its likely he'll do the same here, but I don't think its a guarantee. Every other season he's ever coached he's been .500 or better in conference play.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 12:17:31 PM
the biggest problem is that our fans are rational and don't expect him to do any better, but are also simultaneously ok w/ it. give him a chance guys! let's see what he can do guys! guys we don't even know who his assistants are! guys let's see how this all plays out first before we judge! umm, no. why? i've already seen it play out. no need to watch the same movie twice.
I certainly expect him to do better.
Based on what?
Post by: _33 on April 11, 2012, 12:19:27 PM
Belvis Noland, why are you taking such a passionate stance on this? Seems like an incredibly stupid thing to care so much about.
As a guy who's had season tix since Huggs took over and who's been to every tournament appearance (BigXII, NCAA) in the region, I guess I'm just passionate about KSU basketball. eff me, maybe I shouldn't be.
You didn't understand my post. That's ok, it doesn't bother me.
Post by: sys on April 11, 2012, 12:21:46 PM
and it wasn't like they were 5-20 and they just decided to coast out the last few games. they quit on him when all they had to do was go like .333 over their last 10 to make the tourney.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 12:26:40 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
Lesser of 2.5m or whatever's left on his term.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 12:28:33 PM
the biggest problem is that our fans are rational and don't expect him to do any better, but are also simultaneously ok w/ it. give him a chance guys! let's see what he can do guys! guys we don't even know who his assistants are! guys let's see how this all plays out first before we judge! umm, no. why? i've already seen it play out. no need to watch the same movie twice.
I certainly expect him to do better.
Based on what?
Based on the rest of his career. I already said I understand the caution, but I also don't think its impossible for him to learn from what happened last year and not repeat it.
I won't give him excuses, but his two terrible years had very different circumstances, so I don't see him repeating the same mistake twice as being the key to his failure at Illinois.
The first time was legitimately a rebuilding year with some injuries and recruiting failures mixed in. After that season he recovered.
Last year the recruiting was fine, even really good. It was not a rebuilding year, there was plenty of talent to win with, even with young players. But clearly he did a poor job implimenting everything he needed to sustain success with that group and he failed to turn them around after losing started. Eventually he lost his team, but it was a team with enough talent to win. Of the two failed season, this is the most concerning.
I know you can't eliminate those years from his resume, they are part of who Weber as a coach is. They concern me, but I can also look at the rest of his resume and see that is not impossible for him to learn enough from his time at Illinois to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Stick to recipes Piss.
i was kidding, you dumbass.
So was I . . . dumbass
this is like witnessing two brothers who went to fight for the same side during the civil war get into a knife fight because one said can you please pass the salt at the dinner table and the other mistakenly thought he said i hate you and just had sex with your wife.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 12:31:44 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
Lesser of 2.5m or whatever's left on his term.
There is also stuff in there about whether or not he gets another job within 24 months, and if he does the amount could be reduced depending on how much the next job pays.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 12:33:44 PM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Stick to recipes Piss.
i was kidding, you dumbass.
So was I . . . dumbass
this is like witnessing two brothers who went to fight for the same side during the civil war get into a knife fight because one said can you please pass the salt at the dinner table and the other mistakenly thought he said i hate you and just had sex with your wife.
I was going to be a lot meaner but I held back in the name of EMAW.
Post by: CNS on April 11, 2012, 12:37:40 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
Lesser of 2.5m or whatever's left on his term.
There is also stuff in there about whether or not he gets another job within 24 months, and if he does the amount could be reduced depending on how much the next job pays.
Yeah, it looks like we are basically guaranteeing him to make $2.5M over a two yr period after being fired in that if he takes a lesser job we cover the difference from the new shittier salary.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
Lesser of 2.5m or whatever's left on his term.
There is also stuff in there about whether or not he gets another job within 24 months, and if he does the amount could be reduced depending on how much the next job pays.
Yeah, it looks like we are basically guaranteeing him to make $2.5M over a two yr period after being fired in that if he takes a lesser job we cover the difference from the new shittier salary.
i wonder if illinois had a similar thing, but since we are paying him more than they were maybe weber has to pay the extra back to the illinois instead of vice versa.
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 12:51:15 PM
So if the posts on Wabash are to true, it sounds like Frank had burned multiple AAU bridges and had pissed up the KC AAU punch bowl so badly that K-State was pretty much locked out completely.
Yes, dax, I'm aware that Doc's disgruntled people have told many EMAWs that Frank sucks and that all of those EMAWs are spreading that info in every forum available.
Yeah, I am sure TeamDoc consists of legions of people. :jerk:
5 or less who whine to every EMAW they can find and will happy :jerk: to feeling ITK.
Oh yeah, I am sure they were all out to get Frank. Could never actually see Frank burning any bridges now that I think about it. :rolleyes:
How many of the ITK sources on this issue have a last name starting with something other than "S"?
Doesn't matter Trim#TeamFrank, you don't go burn down the house (Did I just say that) of a potential huge client right down the road from your headquarters. Particularly when that client networks with a bunch of other potential clients. Nothing says great PR when it becomes clear that a guy has gone overboard into abusive dickhole land.
The problem wth the Frankites is that they give a little lip service to the warts and then try to pass that off as being objective. The warts were gigantic even if you toss out Currie.
Hey guys, I love this place so much that I told two my recruits NOT to sign their LOI . . . love ya!
Dax, my point is that it doesn't matter how much his story gets posted by different people in different places. It's still one story. You see what I mean?
Obviously, a story told by people in KC to EMAW fans are going to get regurgitated on EMAW message boards often.
I'm aware that Frank's a weirdo, but it's not due to Doc's coaches/parents crying about it to everyone with a computer.
I don't disagree.
But we know that Jo was on the verge of quitting, Rodney has almost left . . . they don't talk to people? You can't have 2,3,4 guys riding off into the sunset every year before it becomes too much to overcome on the recruiting trail.
Plus, IMO Frank deserved the bad PR, no kid has to put up with the BS that Frank was saying to Doc and I am about as old school as it gets. You don't get personal with a kid who is beat to hell and still playing his ass off for you out on the floor. Particularly when that kid is linked back to an AAU program that seems to have had a decent run of high major prospects coming through it of late. If Frank wanted somebody better than Doc than he should have gone out and recruited them.
sorry but frank didn't do anything wrong and weber sucks. learn to post here.
Stick to recipes Piss.
i was kidding, you dumbass.
So was I . . . dumbass
this is like witnessing two brothers who went to fight for the same side during the civil war get into a knife fight because one said can you please pass the salt at the dinner table and the other mistakenly thought he said i hate you and just had sex with your wife.
stick to recipes, downgrade.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 12:53:06 PM
It's prob been posted, but does anyone know what his contract says about buy out? I mean, we didn't go full on KU/Gill here did we?
Lesser of 2.5m or whatever's left on his term.
There is also stuff in there about whether or not he gets another job within 24 months, and if he does the amount could be reduced depending on how much the next job pays.
That's the norm in contracts. I'm just counting what we'd be on the hook for assuming Currie's new school at that time doesn't hire him. :peek:
Post by: LickNeckey on April 11, 2012, 12:57:11 PM
Belvis Noland, why are you taking such a passionate stance on this? Seems like an incredibly stupid thing to care so much about.
As a guy who's had season tix since Huggs took over and who's been to every tournament appearance (BigXII, NCAA) in the region, I guess I'm just passionate about KSU basketball. eff me, maybe I shouldn't be.
As a guy who has had season tickets since 2000 and has also been to multiple tournament appearances, hell i attended the huggy presser :love:, I refuse to watch us return to crap.
:curse:
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 12:59:13 PM
As a guy who has had season tickets since 2000 and has also been to multiple tournament appearances, hell i attended the huggy presser :love:, I refuse to watch us return to crap.
:curse:
Nobody wants to return to that. Nobody. And being willing to give a Weber a chance doesn't mean you do, so let's just stop with that dumb talking point.
Post by: LickNeckey on April 11, 2012, 01:04:15 PM
Personally i just don't believe that anything but this will happen. :curse:
again. I will not step foot in the ood until Currie/Weber are gone. This is not an attempt to be "edgy" or too cool for school but a symptom of crippling dissapointment.
Post by: _33 on April 11, 2012, 01:05:05 PM
As a guy who has had season tickets since 2000 and has also been to multiple tournament appearances, hell i attended the huggy presser :love:, I refuse to watch us return to crap.
:curse:
Nobody wants to return to that. Nobody. And being willing to give a Weber a chance doesn't mean you do, so let's just stop with that dumb talking point.
Well, not being willing to give Weber a chance doesn't make you less of a fan.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 01:07:32 PM
Well, not being willing to give Weber a chance doesn't make you less of a fan.
I have no problem with that.
I only have a problem when the assumption is made that those giving Weber a chance will automatically let the program go back to the level of the end of Asbury and Wooly's 6 years. That's crap.
Post by: Cire on April 11, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
Well, not being willing to give Weber a chance doesn't make you less of a fan.
I have no problem with that.
I only have a problem when the assumption is made that those giving Weber a chance will automatically let the program go back to the level of the end of Asbury and Wooly's 6 years. That's crap.
the problem is, by the time the give him a chancers are fed up it will be too late and we will be in altman land.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 01:25:36 PM
For clarification I am not saying that giving him a chance means that you want pre-huggy success levels.
Personally i just don't believe that anything but this will happen. :curse:
Pre-Huggy success = Wooly. So, in other words, you believe Weber will be Wooly.
which is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Thank you for the clarification.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 01:30:30 PM
the problem is, by the time the give him a chancers are fed up it will be too late and we will be in altman land.
No, there is no guarantee of that and that is an extremely subjective stance. Every poster who has been vocal in giving Weber a chance has also said he'll be judged on the merits of his coaching and specifically winning and losing. And there is no more guranantee that Weber will bury the program than if we had hired some young assistant like Hurricane or Wojo or taken a chance on Gottlieb. I'll readily admit its not as much fun, but its not like there was any guarantee any of those hires would have left K-State in a worse position than Weber will. In fact, a young inexperienced coach like that would've probably caused many fans to call for more patience than they will with Weber.
Post by: Mr Bread on April 11, 2012, 01:32:11 PM
Well, not being willing to give Weber a chance doesn't make you less of a fan.
I have no problem with that.
I only have a problem when the assumption is made that those giving Weber a chance will automatically let the program go back to the level of the end of Asbury and Wooly's 6 years. That's crap.
the problem is, by the time the give him a chancers are fed up it will be too late and we will be in altman land.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
And there is no more guranantee that Weber will bury the program than if we had hired some young assistant likeHurricane or Wojo or taken a chance on GottliebFrank Martin.
Post by: sys on April 11, 2012, 01:46:35 PM
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 01:51:06 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
If he wins enough, it won't be boring to me. If he doesn't, he'll need to be fired.
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 01:51:36 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
i feel the exact same way and i'm also kind of an illinois fan, so i'm going to have 20 years of weber. it's not fair. it just isn't. i mean illinois finally got rid of him and i did a fistpump and then this. i'm just broken.
Post by: catzacker on April 11, 2012, 01:52:58 PM
And there is no more guranantee that Weber will bury the program than if we had hired some young assistant likeHurricane or Wojo or taken a chance on GottliebFrank Martin.
completely different.
Post by: sys on April 11, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
If he wins enough, it won't be boring to me. If he doesn't, he'll need to be fired.
_fan, he's not going to win more than martin. that's the baseline, because there was no earthly reason to lose martin. obviously if we were going from wooldridge to weber we'd all be toasting currie's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) little ass and counting our coming 11 seeds in our dreams. but that's not what happened.
Post by: _33 on April 11, 2012, 01:56:36 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
Yep. Boring.
There's more to college basketball than winning and losing.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 01:59:10 PM
_fan, he's not going to win more than martin. that's the baseline, because there was no earthly reason to lose martin. obviously if we were going from wooldridge to weber we'd all be toasting currie's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) little ass and counting our coming 11 seeds in our dreams. but that's not what happened.
I don't disagree with any of that, but its water under the bridge now.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:04:14 PM
the biggest problem is that our fans are rational and don't expect him to do any better, but are also simultaneously ok w/ it. give him a chance guys! let's see what he can do guys! guys we don't even know who his assistants are! guys let's see how this all plays out first before we judge! umm, no. why? i've already seen it play out. no need to watch the same movie twice.
I certainly expect him to do better.
Based on what?
Based on the rest of his career. I already said I understand the caution, but I also don't think its impossible for him to learn from what happened last year and not repeat it.
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
I know you can't eliminate those years from his resume, they are part of who Weber as a coach is. They concern me, but I can also look at the rest of his resume and see that is not impossible for him to learn enough from his time at Illinois to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Of course it's not impossible for him to learn from his mistakes - I just don't think it's likely and I've neither seen or heard anything that would lead me to believe otherwise. If he had taken a year off? Maybe. But not taking 3 weeks off.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:10:19 PM
Every poster who has been vocal in giving Weber a chance has also said he'll be judged on the merits of his coaching and specifically winning and losing. And there is no more guranantee that Weber will bury the program than if we had hired some young assistant like Hurricane or Wojo or taken a chance on Gottlieb. I'll readily admit its not as much fun, but its not like there was any guarantee any of those hires would have left K-State in a worse position than Weber will. In fact, a young inexperienced coach like that would've probably caused many fans to call for more patience than they will with Weber.
I absolutely would have been more patient with Antigua or Wojo, because they haven't proven themselves to be failures yet.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:12:07 PM
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
A little bit based on SIU, but I think the problems he ran into that led to both of his terrible seasons at Illinois are avoidable at K-State. And I don't think that's irrational. Heck, even if he only one of those years over a 7-8 stretch and the rest of his career looks like year 3 through year 7 he will be fine.
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Post by: Mr Bread on April 11, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
I am literally in awe that Weber landed on his feet in all of this. I still can't believe he's coaching KSU. It's this morbid fascination. I have to bear witness to how this ends, good or bad.
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
i feel the exact same way and i'm also kind of an illinois fan, so i'm going to have 20 years of weber. it's not fair. it just isn't. i mean illinois finally got rid of him and i did a fistpump and then this. i'm just broken.
Post by: SleepFighter on April 11, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
A little bit based on SIU, but I think the problems he ran into that led to both of his terrible seasons at Illinois are avoidable at K-State. And I don't think that's irrational. Heck, even if he only one of those years over a 7-8 stretch and the rest of his career looks like year 3 through year 7 he will be fine.
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
Holy hullabaloo that's f-ing depressing. At the end I just didn't care about Illinois basketball. Zero interest. It's worse than being pissed at the program. Just no feeling. I can't fathom what you're going through.
K-State was much worse just 7 years ago. You really can't imagine what that was like.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:22:59 PM
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
A little bit based on SIU, but I think the problems he ran into that led to both of his terrible seasons at Illinois are avoidable at K-State. And I don't think that's irrational. Heck, even if he only one of those years over a 7-8 stretch and the rest of his career looks like year 3 through year 7 he will be fine.
Of course his terrible seasons are avoidable, but that doesn't mean he will be able to. They were avoidable at Illinois and he didn't avoid them. Logically, you would expect him to have a few seasons like that at KSU.
Additionally, it is easier to win at Illinois than KSU - they simply have more resources and advantages.
p.s. every coach looks better when you take out their worst season.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 02:23:40 PM
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Wouldn't be terrible by any stretch. Fireable? Hell no. Pretty much Frank Martin bball. Missed 1 postseason, which Frank never did. Also finished 2nd on Conference twice, which Frank never did. give or take, Frankesque results.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:23:54 PM
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
A little bit based on SIU, but I think the problems he ran into that led to both of his terrible seasons at Illinois are avoidable at K-State. And I don't think that's irrational. Heck, even if he only one of those years over a 7-8 stretch and the rest of his career looks like year 3 through year 7 he will be fine.
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
Well said.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 02:24:55 PM
p.s. every coach looksbetterworse when you take out theirworstbest season.
:facepalm:
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
I simply asked if that was fireable.
I hope he does more than that, but I won't consider him to be a major disappointment or a destroyer of K-State basketball as we know it if that is what his first 6 years looks like.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 02:27:37 PM
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
Do you think Martin had attained his ceiling at K-State?
Do you think Martin knew this?
Did our fans accept it?
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:31:17 PM
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
Do you think Martin had attained his ceiling at K-State?
Do you think Martin knew this?
Did our fans accept it?
Not SF, but I'll answer anyway:
Frank may have attained his ceiling in 09-10, but I think it could have been repeated several times, starting with next season.
Not sure if Martin knew my thoughts on the matter.
I am fine with that season as a ceiling.
Post by: SleepFighter on April 11, 2012, 02:33:15 PM
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
I simply asked if that was fireable.
I hope he does more than that, but I won't consider him to be a major disappointment or a destroyer of K-State basketball as we know it if that is what his first 6 years looks like.
What if that is what the next 12 years look like?
No, he won't have destroyed K-State basketball. He'll have just ground out a long stretch without delivering much excitement.
Post by: Trim on April 11, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Wouldn't be terrible by any stretch. Fireable? Hell no. Pretty much Frank Martin bball. Missed 1 postseason, which Frank never did. Also finished 2nd on Conference twice, which Frank never did. give or take, Frankesque results.
This, and the sub-.500 overall, .333 conference record that year, are a big deal. Not very Frank-like. NO WEDNESDAYS!
Haven't looked. 12 and 11 wins were good for 2nd place up there those years?
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Additionally, it is easier to win at Illinois than KSU - they simply have more resources and advantages.
They have some resource advantages compared to K-State, but not as great as I would have thought. Their athletics budget was 70.2 mil last year, ours was 51.5. But compared to the rest of their league they are pretty similar; their budget was 9th in the Big 10, our was 8th in the Big 12. Its not like their resources are far greater than ours compared to the rest of their league.
Post by: SleepFighter on April 11, 2012, 02:37:06 PM
Whether that is fireable or not, K-State won't fire him if he does that. He'll retire here. And I think that is about his ceiling. Which sucks. Why is that okay for an upper bound?
Do you think Martin had attained his ceiling at K-State?
Do you think Martin knew this?
Did our fans accept it?
Not SF, but I'll answer anyway:
Frank may have attained his ceiling in 09-10, but I think it could have been repeated several times, starting with next season.
Not sure if Martin knew my thoughts on the matter.
I am fine with that season as a ceiling.
This is pretty well said. And if you have a team as good as 09-10 a couple of times, you might end up winning a championship or getting to a Final Four.
I believe that Weber is capable of matching the average Frank level of success most years. But instead of reaching up every four or five, I expect us to dip down.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:38:23 PM
This, and the sub-.500 overall, .333 conference record that year, are a big deal. Not very Frank-like. NO WEDNESDAYS!
Haven't looked. 12 and 11 wins were good for 2nd place up there those years?
I changed the record to fit an 18 game conference schedule to make it fit our current schedule, but kept the percentages pretty much the same.
Yes, Weber finished 2nd twice after he won the league twice, granted they were ties.
Post by: Mr Bread on April 11, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
You think he will be better than his nine years at Illinois based on his time at SIU? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's rational.
A little bit based on SIU, but I think the problems he ran into that led to both of his terrible seasons at Illinois are avoidable at K-State. And I don't think that's irrational. Heck, even if he only one of those years over a 7-8 stretch and the rest of his career looks like year 3 through year 7 he will be fine.
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
Additionally, it is easier to win at Illinois than KSU - they simply have more resources and advantages.
They have some resource advantages compared to K-State, but not as great as I would have thought. Their athletics budget was 70.2 mil last year, ours was 51.5. But compared to the rest of their league they are pretty similar; their budget was 9th in the Big 10, our was 8th in the Big 12. Its not like their resources are far greater than ours compared to the rest of their league.
Then why are you OK with us hiring their fired coaches?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2012, 02:40:47 PM
Pretty much a :sdeek:
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 02:42:06 PM
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Wouldn't be terrible by any stretch. Fireable? Hell no. Pretty much Frank Martin bball. Missed 1 postseason, which Frank never did. Also finished 2nd on Conference twice, which Frank never did. give or take, Frankesque results.
the guy in the above scenario only won two tournament games in six years. that's not frankesque results. it's not even close to frankesque results. frank won three times that many in one less year. you need to get your head checked.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 02:42:38 PM
Additionally, it is easier to win at Illinois than KSU - they simply have more resources and advantages.
They have some resource advantages compared to K-State, but not as great as I would have thought. Their athletics budget was 70.2 mil last year, ours was 51.5. But compared to the rest of their league they are pretty similar; their budget was 9th in the Big 10, our was 8th in the Big 12. Its not like their resources are far greater than ours compared to the rest of their league.
Then why are you OK with us hiring their fired coaches?
I wasn't, but I can't change anything about that now. Neither can you. And obviously, neither can this board. No matter how much we complain.
Granted, no matter how positive I try to be about him, there is no guarantee he'll succeed either.
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 02:49:32 PM
Frank may have attained his ceiling in 09-10, but I think it could have been repeated several times, starting with next season.
So Frank's ceiling is his best year (by far). But Weber's ceiling is not.
Makes perfect sense.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 03:03:14 PM
Frank may have attained his ceiling in 09-10, but I think it could have been repeated several times, starting with next season.
So Frank's ceiling is his best year (by far). But Weber's ceiling is not.
Makes perfect sense.
Frank's best conference record was 11-5. He got 10-6 three times. oscar's best conference season was 15-1, and he got to 13-3 once, 11-5 once, and 11-7 once.
Which do you think is more likely to occur again?
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 03:16:47 PM
Frank's best conference record was 11-5. He got 10-6 three times. oscar's best conference season was 15-1, and he got to 13-3 once, 11-5 once, and 11-7 once.
Which do you think is more likely to occur again?
Throw out the outliers and I think that's where oscar is typically going to end up at K-State. There may be an atypical year (good or bad), but for the most part, I think he'll finish in the range of [12-6] - [9-9] most years.
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 03:23:17 PM
Frank's best conference record was 11-5. He got 10-6 three times. oscar's best conference season was 15-1, and he got to 13-3 once, 11-5 once, and 11-7 once.
Which do you think is more likely to occur again?
Throw out the outliers and I think that's where oscar is typically going to end up at K-State. There may be an atypical year (good or bad), but for the most part, I think he'll finish in the range of [12-6] - [9-9] most years.
Why throw out the outliers? He has a championship game appearance!
Post by: Belvis Noland on April 11, 2012, 03:36:37 PM
Why throw out the outliers? He has a championship game appearance!
:lol:
Post by: Mr Bread on April 11, 2012, 03:45:16 PM
Every key player on Weber's best team was already in the program when he took over. Moreover, to suggest well they stayed when he took over so he should get some sort of credit for that is absurd. Those were players with NBA aspirations. They were smart enough to realize that together they could do big things as opposed to sitting out a season to play somewhere else. They would have stayed together regardless of the coach. It wasn't Weber and it wasn't Illinois, it was that group of players and what they knew they could achieve together that kept them at Illinois. They (Williams, Head, Brown and Augustine) wanted a shot at the NBA and sooner rather than later.
Martin achieved his greatest success at KSU with players that he convinced to sign LOIs to play for him or to transfer in to play for him. None of that applies to Weber's greatest achievements at Illinois, which is also why he never replicated it again, which is also why it is highly unlikely he will ever even so much as sniff such success again in his career no matter the program. Weber cannot attract the type of talent that got him to the NC game through normal means. If he steps into a situation in which he is the lesser of two evils, then he's in like Flynn.
Perhaps Frank was becoming toxic and he wouldn't have been able to achieve past results, but that's at
least speculative. With Weber it's already been proven.
This doesn't even take into account the hellacious negative recruiting that he's going to be going up against now that he ultimately tanked and got canned at Illinois. For a guy that isn't a strong recruiter to begin with, I don't know how he could possibly hope to combat or overcome that on the trail.
Frank may have attained his ceiling in 09-10, but I think it could have been repeated several times, starting with next season.
So Frank's ceiling is his best year (by far). But Weber's ceiling is not.
Makes perfect sense.
Frank's best conference record was 11-5. He got 10-6 three times. oscar's best conference season was 15-1, and he got to 13-3 once, 11-5 once, and 11-7 once.
Which do you think is more likely to occur again?
Post by: slimz on April 11, 2012, 03:50:35 PM
Of course, #teamhalo would still be on here making excuses for the continuation of his career schneid, because Weber will be talking about how the players returning weren't really that good and #teamhalo will swallow that hook, line, and sinker. Weber will dangle some Top 100 recruit coming in, so we'll hear, "let him get his guys in the program." And finally, Currie won't admit to a disaster hire by firing the guy after one season (assuming Currie hasn't already played out the next part of his career plan).
So then what would have to happen his second season to get fired? Repeat of the first? Or does he get to keep pointing to his Southern Illinois conference champys and championship game appearance as justification to keep him around? I mean, John Wooden may not have done anything lately, but he won 10 championships or whatever, so maybe we should have Weekend at Bernie's Wooden instead of Weber.
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 04:55:32 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
this could be the biggest load of crap in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
Post by: naturalselection on April 11, 2012, 05:11:49 PM
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
Wouldn't be terrible by any stretch. Fireable? Hell no. Pretty much Frank Martin bball. Missed 1 postseason, which Frank never did. Also finished 2nd on Conference twice, which Frank never did. give or take, Frankesque results.
the guy in the above scenario only won two tournament games in six years. that's not frankesque results. it's not even close to frankesque results. frank won three times that many in one less year. you need to get your head checked.
This, that's 2-4 (Frank 6-4) in the NCAAs and (at least) 3 of 4 trips not playing to seed.
Also, that's 58-50 in conference (53.7%). Frank went 50-32 (61%).
And 130-77 (62.8%) vs Frank's 117-54 (68.4%).
How is that "Pretty much Frank Martin bball"?
Also, Belvis: I believe KSU did finish tied for 2nd place in the conference in 09-10. But lol anyway at the assumption that 11-7 in conference finishes in a 2nd place tie. We just finished 10-8 and got 5th. Frank finished 10-6 twice and was 3rd and 3rdT in those seasons.
Post by: kso_FAN on April 11, 2012, 05:39:14 PM
Post by: 8manpick on April 11, 2012, 05:44:21 PM
Post by: pissclams on April 11, 2012, 06:14:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DGKFDJ3r2tw
weber claps like a loser!
Post by: wes mantooth on April 11, 2012, 06:27:04 PM
check out this gangster ass crap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DGKFDJ3r2tw
weber claps like a loser!
In his defense, it would be kind of weird if the band came in and played a song just for you, with cameras on you. Just seems weird and uncomfortable on the band's part. That doesn't explain his weird clapping motion though.
Post by: steve dave on April 11, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
Post by: chum1 on April 11, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
Post by: michigancat on April 11, 2012, 07:04:09 PM
Quote
"I told them, 'You guys remember me? You beat us by 8 million points.' They all started laughing. That's how I broke the ice."
-- K-State associate head coach Chris Lowery, who served as Southern Illinois' head coach last season, on his first meeting with Wildcat players.
Sounded like a nice moment where lot's of LOL's were exchanged. :thumbs:
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on April 11, 2012, 07:23:13 PM
Quote"I told them, 'You guys remember me? You beat us by 8 million points.' They all started laughing. That's how I broke the ice."
-- K-State associate head coach Chris Lowery, who served as Southern Illinois' head coach last season, on his first meeting with Wildcat players.
Sounded like a nice moment where lot's of LOL's were exchanged. :thumbs:
sounds like lowery is the best at making jokes. everybody has to be the best at something.
Post by: slimz on April 11, 2012, 08:30:24 PM
Quote"I told them, 'You guys remember me? You beat us by 8 million points.' They all started laughing. That's how I broke the ice."
-- K-State associate head coach Chris Lowery, who served as Southern Illinois' head coach last season, on his first meeting with Wildcat players.
Sounded like a nice moment where lot's of LOL's were exchanged. :thumbs:
sounds like lowery is the best at making jokes. everybody has to be the best at something.
:nono: I think you're forgetting Weber's classic line about losing in Bramlage's first game. These 2 guys are gonna be fighting hard for the titles of best jokester and worst coach.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on April 11, 2012, 10:29:53 PM
Good bye
Post by: ChiComCat on April 12, 2012, 09:45:58 AM
Post by: LickNeckey on April 12, 2012, 09:59:37 AM
:angry: :chainsaw: :curse: Frank would never tell jokes like this :angry: :chainsaw: :curse:
Post by: wabash909 on April 12, 2012, 10:06:27 AM
Quote"I told them, 'You guys remember me? You beat us by 8 million points.' They all started laughing. That's how I broke the ice."
-- K-State associate head coach Chris Lowery, who served as Southern Illinois' head coach last season, on his first meeting with Wildcat players.
Sounded like a nice moment where lot's of LOL's were exchanged. :thumbs:
I remember watching that game and thinking to myself how horrible and shitty that SIU team was and how lucky we were that Weiser didn't try to hire that Lowery loser back in the day post Wooly. And now he's on our staff! Man, how things change.
Post by: michigancat on April 12, 2012, 10:09:19 AM
Quote"I told them, 'You guys remember me? You beat us by 8 million points.' They all started laughing. That's how I broke the ice."
-- K-State associate head coach Chris Lowery, who served as Southern Illinois' head coach last season, on his first meeting with Wildcat players.
Sounded like a nice moment where lot's of LOL's were exchanged. :thumbs:
I remember watching that game and thinking to myself how horrible and shitty that SIU team was and how lucky we were that Weiser didn't try to hire that Lowery loser back in the day post Wooly. And how he's on our staff! Man, how things change.
It's pretty hilarious, you guys. (just joshin' to break the ice, ya know?)
Post by: wabash909 on April 12, 2012, 10:20:03 AM
Post by: Fuktard on April 12, 2012, 12:17:52 PM
Kinda funny a "great recruiter" like Howard might end up at KSU...either he sucks or he doesn't have many other options...which is really surprising considering all of the better offers our old staff had, yet they passed on them all to follow their hero Mr Martin.but one thing we do know is that 3 players asked for and met with ADJC.
I may have missed that, but how do we know 3?We don't know who, but I would suggest it wasn't Omari, Watson, Jones or some other meaninless scrub.
What makes you suggest that?
Do you think that the entire basketball staff was either in on this rampant player abuse or oblivious to it? I can't get passed the fact that they all went with Frank when many had other options. If Frank has/had become so toxic with players why the hell would they choose to go to a dead end basketball program and sink their careers with his ship?
Please list the other options our assistant coaches had including the salaries they were offered. tia
It's pretty rare for entire staffs to blindly follow a head coach when he leaves. I mean, Underwood, Assaley, and Greenawalt stuck around for Frank when he was an unproven high school coach. Maybe they got offered more money to stay back then, who knows?
Lamont may have had some trouble finding a new full-time assistant job, so I can see him following a lunatic doomed for failure. But Underwood and Figger would have been able to land on their feet without question. The fact that EVERYONE went without even seeing who KSU was going to hire speaks volumes about how the player abuse/mutiny rumor is complete bullshit.
Post by: michigancat on April 12, 2012, 12:21:38 PM
Kinda funny a "great recruiter" like Howard might end up at KSU...either he sucks or he doesn't have many other options...which is really surprising considering all of the better offers our old staff had, yet they passed on them all to follow their hero Mr Martin.
Did you notice how he didn't come right away? And he still might not come?
Obviously not.
Post by: ChiComCat on April 12, 2012, 12:26:05 PM
Kinda funny a "great recruiter" like Howard might end up at KSU...either he sucks or he doesn't have many other options...which is really surprising considering all of the better offers our old staff had, yet they passed on them all to follow their hero Mr Martin.
You saying Howard hasn't had other options is ridiculous. The media has reported his options consistently.
Also, you saying 3 players and none of them being crap players complained to Currie, offering no evidence, then saying you want evidence with our assts is ridiculous.
Post by: CNS on April 12, 2012, 12:43:49 PM
Post by: Playboy X on April 12, 2012, 12:44:20 PM
pbx
Post by: Fuktard on April 12, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
Kinda funny a "great recruiter" like Howard might end up at KSU...either he sucks or he doesn't have many other options...which is really surprising considering all of the better offers our old staff had, yet they passed on them all to follow their hero Mr Martin.
You saying Howard hasn't had other options is ridiculous. The media has reported his options consistently.
Also, you saying 3 players and none of them being crap players complained to Currie, offering no evidence, then saying you want evidence with our assts is ridiculous.
Not sure i understand what you are saying. Are you saying that no players spoke with Currie? Are you saying that crap players spoke with Currie? I have never said I have any evidence of anything, I'm just trying to make an effort at solving the riddle. I would love someone to give me an idea of the other offers our assistants had...I haven't seen anything reported. I don't blame them for immediately saying yes to Frank, because had they not, Frank would have likely filled the spot. I don't understand why people think there were no issues at KSU because our assitants followed Frank. I guess if there was even CONJECTURE that one of them had a better offer (or even an EQUIVALENT offer) and went, it would make me feel differently...I haven't seen that reported or conjectured or rumored or whatever else in the hell it would be called.
Post by: Trim on April 13, 2012, 10:53:15 PM
:flush:
Post by: steve dave on April 13, 2012, 11:01:56 PM
Post by: Trim on April 14, 2012, 12:03:35 AM
Post by: Barry McCockner on April 14, 2012, 05:53:07 AM
Post by: wabash909 on April 14, 2012, 06:31:02 AM
These guys keep listing all the crap they care about, and winning has never been mentioned.
To be fair, at a certain point Wooldridge stopped talking about winning.
Weber probably learned some valuable lessons from Illinois.
Post by: CNS on April 14, 2012, 11:31:08 AM
Sent from my MB611 using Tapatalk
Post by: Mr Bread on April 14, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
http://themercury.com/k-statesports/article.aspx?articleId=7babe885b4e34ec7b7b8574cf4f40989
:sdeek:
:flush:
It's good he's using Kentucky under Calipari as his template for success while he's coaching under oscar Weber at KSU.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on April 14, 2012, 11:46:45 AM
Quote
Lowery said K-State, in a way, sells itself on the recruiting front.:lol: He's so naive.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 14, 2012, 02:43:18 PM
When FSD ventures onto thesportsboards it alwaysends hilariouslyprompts the Mods to run to the rescue of one of their losery, unintelligent, whiny-ass internet companions who is getting pwn3d by Sugar Dick for being a stupid, whiny, little bitch
FYP
No other goEMAW poster warrants as much attention and prompt denigration from the Mods as Sugar Dick. Truly a badge of honor given the performing arts culture of this board. If this wasn't such a dumbfuck, mass of humanity mecca I'd actually give a crap.
Thanks anyways 'teve 'ave! :thumbsup:
Post by: sys on April 14, 2012, 05:15:11 PM
Quote
You can't fault kids because they're different nowadays.
:cool:
Post by: slimz on November 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
IMO, what Weber's tenure at Illinois has shown is if you put a premium on shooting and don't shoot well your offense will struggle. Even the last 6 years, Weber's teams have consistently out-shot their opponents (eFG%), an average of nearly 4% better per season. For Frank's teams the difference was slightly less than 1%. But the difference in TO% and OR% for Frank's teams are both dramatically better than Weber's and that's why Frank's offensive efficiency was much better. Weber's teams have had better defensive efficiencies (89.7 his last 6 years compared to 91.2 for Frank's 5), but it wasn't enough to make up for the offensive issues.
Well, the good news for next year is that our players are fantastic jump shooters.
:dance:
Post by: michigancat on April 23, 2013, 12:22:56 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravoartillery.org%2FFile0039.jpg&hash=6c981547a679308b5495c498351132385fde48e2)
pretty good thread to reread. No idea what chum was doing w/ this post, though.
Post by: Kat Kid on April 24, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
So far Weber looks ahead of schedule. Year 1 better than expected and Year 2 worse than expected.
Post by: CHONGS on February 19, 2015, 02:37:37 PM
Post by: kso_FAN on February 19, 2015, 03:21:24 PM
Post by: Mixed-Nutz on February 19, 2015, 03:24:26 PM
Clearly I was way too optimistic about Weber changing or learning from his failures at Illinois. I'm most disappointed that when things go south he's gone back to the same whiny excuses, but I shouldn't be surprised.This program resembles Lowery's failures at SIU more than oscar's.
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2015, 03:28:11 PM
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 03:47:43 PM
Clearly I was way too optimistic about Weber changing or learning from his failures at Illinois. I'm most disappointed that when things go south he's gone back to the same whiny excuses, but I shouldn't be surprised.This program resembles Lowery's failures at SIU more than oscar's.
No it doesn't. When oscar sucked the most crap in 2007-08 he had his best guard/three-point shooter Jamar Smith suspended for the season for felony dui. He ended up having to kick him off the team the next year because he violated his probation. He had to suspend Luther Head for res burg and Rich McBride for dui. Suspended Jereme Richmond several times in his lone season for weed and fighting with a teammate. He had plenty of player suspensions and behavioral issues that led, in part, to shitty results on the court.
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 03:48:07 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 19, 2015, 03:49:30 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
Well actually we suck at inbounds plays.
Post by: sys on February 19, 2015, 03:51:06 PM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
Well actually we suck at inbounds plays.
people do enjoy watching us try to inbound the ball these days, i think that was catzacker's point.
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 04:01:55 PM
I'd say Frank threw his players under the bus a lot. He won though so nobody really cared except for some tucks. The new coaches can back that bus up as many times as they want as long as they win more often than not.
The difference is Frank didn't get fired for performance. I will excuse any and all questionable behavior if the end result is wins. Conversely, I will nitpick like the Dickens if we lose. I think it's my right.
I will write up Kafka-esque haikus about Weber if we suck.
:users:
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 04:08:34 PM
Hey michicat, frank isn't coming back. Find one available (no show cause) hc who's efficiency numbers are better than BW s and get back to us.
LOL, way to change the subject. But how about Larry Eustachy and Josh Pastner? Randy Bennett? And those are just three off the top of my head that would have been attainable for K-State.The new staff isn't gonna come in and say, hey the team is in great shape, and psuedo-statistically speaking, based on a five year look back, as a staff we are incapable of improving this this 6th place big 12 team, so we quit.
There are plenty of things they could have said without sounding like delusional dumbasses who think they did nothing wrong when they both GOT FIRED FOR LOSING. These guys seriously think (or at least act like) the previous staff had no clue what they're doing. In doing so, they're setting themselves up to go down the same losing path that GOT THEM BOTH FIRED.
:Rusty:
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2015, 04:42:34 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
so much for this hypothetical
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 05:02:11 PM
Say, hypothetically, Webers first 5 years are as follows:
12 - 23 Ws, 2nd in conference, sweet 16
13 - 21 Ws, 4th in conference, round of 32
14 - 19 Ws, 5th in conference, NIT
15 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, 1st round NCAA
16 - 20 Ws, 4th in conference, NIT
Recruiting classes are average. Mostly 100-150 3* players. Goes 1-9 against KU.
Are these fairly average results a "big step back" for our program? Will weber have successfully "mehd us to death"?
Give or take, the hypo above is pretty much Frank Martin basketball. Slight edge to Martin, I'd guess.
so much for this hypothetical
So far so good on this one.
Would this be terrible for a 6 year stretch? Fireable?
26–7 12–6 T–2nd NCAA 2nd Round
23–12 10–8 T–4th NCAA 1st Round
16–19 6–12 T–9th
24–10 11–7 T–2nd NCAA 1st Round
21–15 10–8 5th NIT Quarterfinals
20–14 9–9 T–4th NCAA 2nd Round
chum! It's a flat circle!! :excited:
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2015, 06:19:33 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2015, 06:20:28 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravoartillery.org%2FFile0039.jpg&hash=6c981547a679308b5495c498351132385fde48e2)
pretty good thread to reread. No idea what chum was doing w/ this post, though.
@chum1, please address this
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2015, 06:28:04 PM
Post by: Trim on February 19, 2015, 06:38:16 PM
yosh. UW. Belvis. FSD. Fuktard. Tattoo those names on your forehead.
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2015, 06:54:51 PM
:impatient:I'd say Frank threw his players under the bus a lot. He won though so nobody really cared except for some tucks. The new coaches can back that bus up as many times as they want as long as they win more often than not.
The difference is Frank didn't get fired for performance. I will excuse any and all questionable behavior if the end result is wins. Conversely, I will nitpick like the Dickens if we lose. I think it's my right.
I will write up Kafka-esque haikus about Weber if we suck.
Post by: Cire on February 19, 2015, 07:06:54 PM
Were so mumped! can't wait till I can tell people " see I told you so"
Will be like xmas
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2015, 07:09:48 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravoartillery.org%2FFile0039.jpg&hash=6c981547a679308b5495c498351132385fde48e2)
Yep.
Post by: pissclams on February 19, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
This is a fantastic thread. Everyone must read this from the beginning again.I can't bring myself to do it
yosh. UW. Belvis. FSD. Fuktard. Tattoo those names on your forehead.
Post by: Trim on February 19, 2015, 08:10:59 PM
This is a fantastic thread. Everyone must read this from the beginning again.I can't bring myself to do it
yosh. UW. Belvis. FSD. Fuktard. Tattoo those names on your forehead.
You have to. I don't even thing there were hardly any links or anything, so you could have hemmy print it for you and take it over ot the falloon.
Post by: sys on February 19, 2015, 08:30:41 PM
i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
this could be the biggest load of crap in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
as it's turned out, clams was probably right. i've been pretty entertained this year. i lost a lot of interest in the previous years, but that's not really weber's fault. i'm curious and engaged to see what next year brings as well.
as always when i reread these threads, i discover that i don't post as much as i think i do. i should post more.
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2015, 08:37:16 PM
Post by: Mr Bread on February 19, 2015, 08:57:53 PM
Post by: pissclams on February 19, 2015, 09:03:59 PM
admittedly I defended oscar but it was only because I had to give him a chance. I didn't have any other choice.i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
this could be the biggest load of crap in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
as it's turned out, clams was probably right. i've been pretty entertained this year. i lost a lot of interest in the previous years, but that's not really weber's fault. i'm curious and engaged to see what next year brings as well.
as always when i reread these threads, i discover that i don't post as much as i think i do. i should post more.
Post by: CHONGS on February 19, 2015, 09:08:45 PM
I understand, I do... I defended Prince too for the same reason...admittedly I defended oscar but it was only because I had to give him a chance. I didn't have any other choice.i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
this could be the biggest load of crap in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
as it's turned out, clams was probably right. i've been pretty entertained this year. i lost a lot of interest in the previous years, but that's not really weber's fault. i'm curious and engaged to see what next year brings as well.
as always when i reread these threads, i discover that i don't post as much as i think i do. i should post more.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 19, 2015, 09:14:22 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 19, 2015, 09:14:35 PM
I understand, I do... I defended Prince too for the same reason...admittedly I defended oscar but it was only because I had to give him a chance. I didn't have any other choice.i don't think weber will bury the program. i'm sure it will be ok when he's done with it. i just think he's ten years of boring, bubbly basketball. we don't live that long, it pisses me the eff off that currie stole ten years of my basketball viewing prime.
this could be the biggest load of crap in this entire thread, and that's saying something.
as it's turned out, clams was probably right. i've been pretty entertained this year. i lost a lot of interest in the previous years, but that's not really weber's fault. i'm curious and engaged to see what next year brings as well.
as always when i reread these threads, i discover that i don't post as much as i think i do. i should post more.
Same reason beems comes out in defense of every indefensible hire that KU football makes. No choice but to at least give it a chance.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 12:57:51 AM
someone who makes me uncomfortable and Seasoned Salt are perfect for our rough ridin' dipshit fanbase. "look at that inbounds play!" "now THAT'S an offense" "no backdoors this year".
I want to be right more than I want the cats to win.
You're the most butthurt [redacted] on the planet.
Let me guess, you've voiced your displeasure far and wide on . . . goEMAW.com.
Pussy.
:ROFL: oh dax
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 01:20:26 AM
Things had changed, on court demeanor was carrying off the court, verbal abuse had been ratcheted to extremely personal levels . . . when what I am being told makes me say "DAMN" than its pretty bad IMO.
You're also smart enough to know that eventually "Frank being Frank" becomes even more difficult to explain to recruits, the track record begins to build on itself and becomes more difficult to overcome.
Oh GMAFB. You think Frank didn't yell at and cuss people out in practice before this season? You think he never told someone he would burn their house down with them in it before this season? Also, how can you explain HIS ENTIRE STAFF following him to South Carolina. Literally everyone went with him. THINK ABOUT IT.
I am not the least bit surprised that the entire staff followed him. Telling a kid that he wants to burn their house down with them inside goes way beyond the "you're an effing coward . . . you're the most selfish mothereffer I've ever coached" that you guys love. Calling a timeout just so you can scream at a kid because he missed a freethrow and your star player feel's compelled to intervene and tell you to chill the eff out? I know you TooCoolForSchoolers think that's all great, but I think at some point it becomes over-the-top prima donna Bull$hit. Does that mean you get rid of Frank . . . no!
But I get it, Will's just soft and Cauley and Semi are just pussies and "don't get" Frank. Damn Mo-Kan Spiece pussies anyway . . . amirite?
Three years later and we're still waiting for these Frank's a monster stories, I'm sure they're days away now. Also LOL at WCS and Semi picking Kentucky and Duke because Frank cusses a lot. Those local recruits have really been rolling in since Lucifer left. It's a shame that nice guy oscar couldn't keep Semi from transferring to SMU.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 01:22:50 AM
He did. And all of them but Pullen were gone after year one. And he was still making the tournament when ALL the players he inherited were gone.
The best player on his team - Gruds - was inherited. To state otherwise is silly.
wut
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 01:38:01 AM
Mommy was in a shitty marriage. She made a hard decision and she divorced her abusive husband. As a knee jerk reaction she began dating someone who is the complete opposite.
Now the kids hate their mother's boyfriend because he is nothing like daddy. All that they loved about daddy, the new bf lacks. The kids didn't hear all the late night bickering and the verbal barrage that was laid upon their mother, the cheating, etc.
So now they whine and complain to their mother and disrespect her new boyfriend. All the while putting their dad on a pedestal he didn't necessarily deserve. Daddy left you to start a new family with a woman half your mother's worth. Love your mother and her happiness. :)
Mommy gave daddy the clap and the new boyfriend is a meth fiend with a gambling addiction.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 02:19:04 AM
Post by: rob mccolley on February 20, 2015, 06:35:39 AM
This is a fantastic thread. Everyone must read this from the beginning again.
yosh. UW. Belvis. FSD. Fuktard. Tattoo those names on your forehead.
The thing that stands out to me is Ghost of Stan Parrish's final entry on page 7. I don't know whether it's intentional subterfuge, self-delusion, lemonades from lemons, etc. but that long entry is one enormous package of misdirection & sleight of hand.
I'd be happy to go into detail, but I assume it's all been covered by now.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:31:19 AM
Post by: kso_FAN on February 20, 2015, 07:39:13 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.
Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot. :dunno:
Post by: rob mccolley on February 20, 2015, 07:40:22 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.
But GOSP's metrics were bad, too.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:44:21 AM
I just don't get the doom and gloom.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:49:15 AM
There's plenty of basis for it. The mistake is to base your predictions solely on metrics.
Crystal ball?
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 07:49:44 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:50:33 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.
Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot. :dunno:
Honestly, this is embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be a "data guy".
Post by: pissclams on February 20, 2015, 07:52:39 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:52:51 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
Post by: kso_FAN on February 20, 2015, 07:53:16 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.
Seems to me the forecast has been pretty accurate. Like by a lot. :dunno:
Honestly, this is embarrassing for someone who's supposed to be a "data guy".
Heh. I'm not embarrassed in the least.
The general trend of early success and struggles by his 3rd year is what many people thought would happen.
Post by: rob mccolley on February 20, 2015, 07:55:49 AM
Crystal ball?
You guys are 1-and-1 including a win over a top 20 team. Your loss was a conference road game.
Not bad right? The data says the mood around here should be pretty good, right?
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 07:56:46 AM
Who said that with any degree of certainty?To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 07:59:02 AM
just wondering, how many seasons do you need to collect for you to accept the empirical evidence in front of you?
There isn't a realistic scenario that would lead me to conclude with very high confidence that oscar's first three years would more or less go how they have gone.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 08:01:04 AM
Who said that with any degree of certainty?To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
Probably anyone willing to burn it down?
Post by: kso_FAN on February 20, 2015, 08:02:03 AM
Who said that with any degree of certainty?
I wasn't one of them, but I think many posters were pretty certain there would be early success and the program would get worse over the course of time. No one was saying exact scenarios, but the general trend was predicted well by many posters based on oscar's history.
I'm sure part of this is just chum's devil's advocate BBSing, which can be effective and entertaining.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 20, 2015, 08:02:58 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 08:10:48 AM
chum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.
It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 20, 2015, 08:24:17 AM
chum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.
It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.
You're just not going to get the amount/variety of data that you're looking for when predicting future success for college coaches. So, we can all sit around and lament the fact that all of our guesses would be meaningless, and then try to find something else to talk about...OR, we can make predictions based not only upon numbers, but also on human nature and personality traits that we feel will influence the success/failure of a certain coach. Then when we're right/wrong we can either talk crap or eat crow. It's kind of how being a sports fan works. If we all waited for the data to clearly point to a certain outcome, then there'd be no need for predictions anymore.
Post by: rob mccolley on February 20, 2015, 08:28:36 AM
It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.
you will certainly come up with oscar Weber.
Post by: catzacker on February 20, 2015, 08:43:16 AM
Post by: 8manpick on February 20, 2015, 09:05:36 AM
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 20, 2015, 09:09:45 AM
I think oscar is probably closer to a 28% shooter though
I don't think you have near enough data to say that with any certainty. If it ends up being true, then I think we can all agree that you're a witch.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 09:45:51 AM
Jesus christ. If a guy who shoots 35% from 3 has a stretch where he shoots 45%, are we to be surprised that he has a stretch that he shoots 25%? oscar's trajectory (his average) is looking like what alot thought it would look like. Of course there isn't absolute certainty to it. Call it confidence or whatever you rough ridin' like to make yourself feel better about being wrong I guess.
I didn't make any predictions. Although, if I had, I would have included the actual last three year span in a range of possibilites. So, I couldn't have been wrong.
I just think there's been a misinterpretation of data. That' s my issue. And I'm not saying anything stupid like that we must have absoute certainty either.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 10:06:00 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 10:35:09 AM
Actually, I didn't state my entire issue quite right. I think judgements which are actually unsupported by data about Weber have been made under the guise of being supported by data. :curse: :curse: :curse:ok, chum
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 10:49:40 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_successionchum1 is so completely out to rough ridin' lunch on this. According to him, you'd need 5 or so lengthy tenures at relatively similar institutions to really even start to be able to make valid predictions about a coach's future performance. Anything before that and you're basically using Chinese Fortune Sticks.
It's an issue of proportionality between evidence and confidence. And it's not according to me. It's according to math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_%28statistics%29
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 11:18:14 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.
Post by: sys on February 20, 2015, 11:26:31 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 11:28:21 AM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.
What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
basically, i agree with chum1. in that predicting a coach's performance is always going to be a fairly imprecise endeavor, because the data are inadequate to allow much confidence. but i guess i disagree that it's a pointless exercise. you do the best you can with the information available to you.
I agree it's not pointless, but also think it's a mistake not to recognize when you're working with incomplete data and allow yourself to draw unsupported conclusions. It possible that there may be a little bit of that going on here.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
basically, i agree with chum1. in that predicting a coach's performance is always going to be a fairly imprecise endeavor, because the data are inadequate to allow much confidence. but i guess i disagree that it's a pointless exercise. you do the best you can with the information available to you.
I've thought about this a lot with regards to how few coaches have successfully rebuilt programs. It's really hard and I think a lot of successful coaches that have made wise career moves would struggle with a rebuilding job. It doesn't mean they're bad coaches, just that it's a difficult job and prior success is probably a very imprecise indicator.
One thing that made oscar's situation perhaps more predictable than many hires is that each program he took over was at a very similar level when he was hired: power conference teams with prior coaches leaving on their own and leaving behind talented returning rosters. So, even though this type of hire was extremely rare, it was perhaps one of the most predictable trajectories you'll ever find.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 11:48:14 AM
Post by: Mr Bread on February 20, 2015, 11:52:24 AM
Post by: sys on February 20, 2015, 12:13:45 PM
it's a mistake not to recognize when you're working with incomplete data and allow yourself to draw unsupported conclusions. It possible that there may be a little bit of that going on here.
pointing out to people that their currently on track predictions extended beyond the support of the data is a thankless task.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 12:19:27 PM
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 12:24:45 PM
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 12:25:35 PM
Post by: _33 on February 20, 2015, 12:30:00 PM
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVJAFNcI.png&hash=0ba108eab2ecf16256f48fa4ca7a807242ba193f)
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 12:47:54 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1322.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu576%2Fteamcatlab%2Ffpdist_zps42c5869d.png&hash=9e50517913bff17d434da346ed37bf2f4c5b62e1)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2015, 08:28:11 PM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.
What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?
It wasn't my most likely outcome, I never projected an outcome positive or negative. I simply pointed out your cheap trick of converting the predictions of some into statements of absolute certainty to strengthen your point. My level of confidence in the outcome is of no consequence.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2015, 08:44:51 PM
To me, the most self-delusional thing is the certainty with which Weber's performance was (and still is) forecasted. There's just not actually that much basis for it. And the way I read it, this is exactly what GOSP was calling into question.oscar's tenure was more predictable than most because of his lengthy track record that led to him getting fired from a comparable situation.
I didn't expect this year to go so poorly or his first year to go so well, but neither season should have surprised anyone because of his tenure at Illinois.
This was the only possible outcome and we knew it all along.
LOL, dax is that you? People accurately predicting the most likely outcome based on recent history morphed into absolutes and certainties, well played ChumDax.
What is the most likely outcome that you are referencing? Are you sure it is the same thing that I'm referencing? Do you think that the level of confidence in your most likely outcome exhibited by many here is proportional to its likelihood?
It wasn't my most likely outcome, I never projected an outcome positive or negative. I simply pointed out your cheap trick of converting the predictions of some into statements of absolute certainty to strengthen your point. My level of confidence in the outcome is of no consequence.
I didn't ask you about your views. I asked you about the views of others that you were referencing. Are you attempting to employ some sort of cheap trick here?
Post by: hatingfrancisco on February 20, 2015, 09:32:11 PM
IMO, what Weber's tenure at Illinois has shown is if you put a premium on shooting and don't shoot well your offense will struggle. Even the last 6 years, Weber's teams have consistently out-shot their opponents (eFG%), an average of nearly 4% better per season. For Frank's teams the difference was slightly less than 1%. But the difference in TO% and OR% for Frank's teams are both dramatically better than Weber's and that's why Frank's offensive efficiency was much better. Weber's teams have had better defensive efficiencies (89.7 his last 6 years compared to 91.2 for Frank's 5), but it wasn't enough to make up for the offensive issues.
Wow.
Post by: nicname on February 20, 2015, 09:42:31 PM
My prescience is fully engorged. It throbs with righteous accuracy. I am sated.
I imagined this being said by E.B. Farnum to Richardson. It was glorious.