Author Topic: On the Bright Side...  (Read 1644 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ksu101

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
On the Bright Side...
« on: January 29, 2012, 01:03:37 PM »


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline scoops callahan

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2649
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2012, 01:17:16 PM »
miami-hurricanes-extend-jim-larranaga-contract-2019[/b]]http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7510483/miami-hurricanes-extend-jim-larranaga-contract-2019

At least we get to keep Frank till 2019...... This is good news, right?

I don't know if that's bright. Im starting to like Frank less and less as the year progresses
#LIFE

Offline Fuktard

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2012, 01:35:29 PM »
miami-hurricanes-extend-jim-larranaga-contract-2019[/b]]http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7510483/miami-hurricanes-extend-jim-larranaga-contract-2019

At least we get to keep Frank till 2019...... This is good news, right?

I don't know if that's bright. Im starting to like Frank less and less as the year progresses

This.  It rough ridin' sucks to be 15-5.  I long for the good ole days of Asbury and Wooly.  At least they didn't run a rough ridin' zone.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59533
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2012, 01:42:44 PM »
K-State paid Wooldridge $650k a year, and wasn't building him a $20 million dollar practice facility.

To keep comparing Frank to the lowest possible denominator too make yourself feel better about seeing his team get beat twice by an NIT team (for the 2nd straight year) is absolutely the highest form of Tuck that exists.


Offline Fuktard

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2012, 01:45:14 PM »
K-State paid Wooldridge $650k a year, and wasn't building him a $20 million dollar practice facility.

To keep comparing Frank to the lowest possible denominator too make yourself feel better about seeing his team get beat twice by an NIT team (for the 2nd straight year) is absolutely the highest form of Tuck that exists.



Typical Dax....always the loudest after a loss....probably makes you giddy as a school girl thinking about loggin in to this board and acting like an entitled douche bag.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59533
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2012, 02:27:49 PM »
This is you FT . . . . Frank better than Wooly, Frank better than Asbury . . . and I am with you on that until in usual tuck fashion you begin to meltdown at the thought of having real expectations that go far beyond simply being better than Wooly, or better than Tom Asbury.



« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 02:33:15 PM by sonofdaxjones »

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 18069
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2012, 02:45:18 PM »
K-State paid Wooldridge $650k a year, and wasn't building him a $20 million dollar practice facility.

The facility and Frank's paycheck are a result of his accomplishments here.  Its not like we just did these things so we could have higher standards.  Frank built higher standards and thus we've done these things.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59533
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2012, 03:09:58 PM »
K-State paid Wooldridge $650k a year, and wasn't building him a $20 million dollar practice facility.

The facility and Frank's paycheck are a result of his accomplishments here.  Its not like we just did these things so we could have higher standards.  Frank built higher standards and thus we've done these things.

I agree, but to that end, we are not spoiled, if we didn't regularly blow chunks at home, if say K-State had won 44 straight at home and lost on an amazing last second shot to a quality team and people were melting down . . . then yes, one could say we are spoiled.    But that is not the case right now.


Offline Stupid Fitz

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6834
  • Go Cats
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2012, 03:43:54 PM »
K-State paid Wooldridge $650k a year, and wasn't building him a $20 million dollar practice facility.

The facility and Frank's paycheck are a result of his accomplishments here.  Its not like we just did these things so we could have higher standards.  Frank built higher standards and thus we've done these things.

I agree, but to that end, we are not spoiled, if we didn't regularly blow chunks at home, if say K-State had won 44 straight at home and lost on an amazing last second shot to a quality team and people were melting down . . . then yes, one could say we are spoiled.    But that is not the case right now.



I guess I have lower expectations than you.  I don't think we are ever going to get the players here to run off 44 straight at home.  I agree that last night was bullshit and shouldn't happen very often.  Pretty much everyone thought we would suck this year and there is still a decent chance at making the tourney.  If this is a "down" year, I am good with it. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59533
    • View Profile
Re: On the Bright Side...
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2012, 08:27:56 PM »
I don't expect 44 game home court winning streaks, I am just saying that being in a melty-downy mood is not acting "spoiled" when you see a K-State team that will fight to stay off the bubble lose to a team like OU at home.

But with that said, at least yesterday and last time, OU looked like they had superior basketball players to K-State, and while I know it absolutely enrages the Frankites when I say thid . . . but OU ran some sets/plays that absolutely clownsuited K-State last night . . . again.