Currie holding Jamar out of the Syracuse game is a big deal for KSU in that the perception of that event from the outside looking in is that of an overeager and hyper-anal young AD picking a fight with a coach he disliked at the expense of both the men's basketball program and a senior player looking forward to playing the biggest game of his career. The damning perception in the media seems to have been that Jamar probably didn't do anything wrong, that's an ENORMOUS problem for KSU that Currie has exacerbated by being a weasel and modifying his story post hoc.
But suppose Jamar was clearly in the wrong and he played against Syracuse, what's the REASONABLE worst case outcome? A slap on the wrist & forfeiture of that game and others he might have participated in going forward had KSU won? Big deal. It's very difficult from a fan's perspective to view this as anything other than John Currie protecting John Currie's resume at the expense of Jamar Samuels, the KSU men's basketball program and Kansas State University. That perception, again, is an ENORMOUS problem for KSU and it's one purely of Currie's making.
Given the nature of Currie's recent actions towards the basketball program it's completely unsurprising that he had no real options when Frank walked. The national perception at that point was that our resume polishing AD had just run off the most initially successful coach in the history of KSU basketball in a feud over what seemed to many to be a non-issue. Couple that with Frank's all-American rags-to-riches life story and his present status as something of a media darling and it seems fair to say that Currie created a toxic atmosphere at KSU. Right or wrong that's how KSU looks to America right now and the best the athletic department can do to combat that perception is to spew forth a few weak rumors about a potential disaster had Frank stayed.
Stopped reading here. This is just completely off base, and I've addressed it here several times and JC has explained it several times. Currie didn't hold Jamar out, the NCAA did. And once they did, if we played him, it would have been more than a slap on the wrist. Get over it, Jamar screwed up.
And Currie's rep nationally in Athletics is not toxic. Some national writers who are close with Frank have written some negative stuff. Do not believe it impacted available candidates.
I do not believe your chronology is accurate.
But glad you stopped reading the best written post on the subject to date. Glad you ignored a well written combination of thoughts and criticisms. Glad you wrapped it up with "get over it"
It is EXACTLY this attitude that proves the AD doesn't give a eff about anyone under 45.
Here is a primer for the uninitiated in dealing with the KSU AD:
1. "transparency" = We will tell you what we want you to know, when we want you to know it. We will obstruct the gathering of information (or outright lie) about the other things. Oh, when it comes to telling tales that make Frank Martin look bad, we will leak those out there too but not give a single source that would actually be, you know, transparent.
2. "Get over it" = You have no choice and no hope of change. We don't care what you say, or how you say it. Unless it means you quit giving us money, in which case we will quickly tell you that you are a crappy fan and are hurting your school.
3. "Give him time" = Shut up and take this hire quietly. Leave us alone. Be quiet. Stop complaining. We aren't listening. Currie and Schulz are leaving in 2 years/ So, we actually mean "give us time to leave"
