K-State basketball history and oscar Weber

[kso_FAN]

This sort of piggybacks off of steve dave's earlier post. I wrote it earlier today and wasn't sure what to do with it. It's long and many won't read it. Of those that do, many probably won't agree. Regardless, its where I've come to and partially why I'll support Weber at K-State.

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=2009

[wetwillie]

This sort of piggybacks off of steve dave's earlier post. I wrote it earlier today and wasn't sure what to do with it. It's long and many won't read it. Of those that do, many probably won't agree. Regardless, its where I've come to and partially why I'll support Weber at K-State.

http://goEMAW.com/blog/?p=2009

Straight to the bottom

so in the end, I will give oscar Weber a chance 

[CHONGS]

I mean he gets a chance, but not a pass.  There is a difference.  He must prove he has learned from his failures first.  It's different from Frank because oscar is a known quantity and that known quantity is one of dragging down a program.

[kso_FAN]

I mean he gets a chance, but not a pass.  There is a difference.  He must prove he has learned from his failures first.  It's different from Frank because oscar is a known quantity and that known quantity is one of dragging down a program.

Agree. 100%.

[michigancat]

I've done some deliberation and

Weber's chance: denied

[ZmoneyKSU]

I'm ready to move on. I'm just all raged out at this time. Not saying I'm on board as it being a good hire, but nothing left to do but wait it out.  I hope we win too, win big, and I'm made to look a fool.

[JKEYS]

I've done some deliberation and

Weber's chance: denied

 

[AzCat]

I very much disagree with your definition of mediocrity.  Mediocrity is just meh, it's neither good nor bad, it's the very definition of ordinary, average, pedestrian, etc.  It's not necessarily failure but it does include the absence of significant success.

Consider: distributed to members of the (arguably) top 5 basketball conferences (Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, ACC) there were something like 30 bids to this year's NCAA Tournament drawn from around 60 total schools.  Thus the probability of any given program from one of these conferences reaching the NCAA Tournament should be roughly 0.5 since that's probably been true for the top 5-ish conferences essentially forever.

So a mediocre coach from a top 5 conference should, based on probability alone, make the NCAA Tournament about half the time.  The perennial bubble team is therefore mediocre by definition.  If the team falls so far off the bubble that they don't make any postseason tournament that's not mediocrity, that's failure. 

Consider Weber's last six seasons at Illinois playing with his own recruits: 3 NCAAs (50%, the very definition of mediocrity), 1 NIT & 2 seasons with no postseason play.  That's mediocrity in a top 5 conference.  It's neither bad nor good, it's just a little less than average. 

Wooly & Asbury weren't mediocrities, they were failures.  Particularly pathetic ones at that. 

[kso_FAN]

I very much disagree with your definition of mediocrity.  Mediocrity is just meh, it's neither good nor bad, it's the very definition of ordinary, average, pedestrian, etc.  It's not necessarily failure but it does include the absence of significant success.

Consider: distributed to members of the (arguably) top 5 basketball conferences (Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, ACC) there were something like 30 bids to this year's NCAA Tournament drawn from around 60 total schools.  Thus the probability of any given program from one of these conferences reaching the NCAA Tournament should be roughly 0.5 since that's probably been true for the top 5-ish conferences essentially forever.

So a mediocre coach from a top 5 conference should, based on probability alone, make the NCAA Tournament about half the time.  The perennial bubble team is therefore mediocre by definition.  If the team falls so far off the bubble that they don't make any postseason tournament that's not mediocrity, that's failure. 

Consider Weber's last six seasons at Illinois playing with his own recruits: 3 NCAAs (50%, the very definition of mediocrity), 1 NIT & 2 seasons with no postseason play.  That's mediocrity in a top 5 conference.  It's neither bad nor good, it's just a little less than average. 

Wooly & Asbury weren't mediocrities, they were failures.  Particularly pathetic ones at that. 

I wouldn't disagree with most of that. To me mediocrity was when most fans quit caring, good or bad. I don't think we're in position for that to happen again, I think our fans want us to at least continue to be competitive. We may not completely agree on what "competitive" means, but it at least means NCAAs more often than not.

[Saulbadguy]

The voice. I can't get over it.

[kso_FAN]

The voice. I can't get over it.

Yeah, plus oscar comes across a bit lacksadaisical.

[AzCat]

I very much disagree with your definition of mediocrity.  Mediocrity is just meh, it's neither good nor bad, it's the very definition of ordinary, average, pedestrian, etc.  It's not necessarily failure but it does include the absence of significant success.

Consider: distributed to members of the (arguably) top 5 basketball conferences (Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, ACC) there were something like 30 bids to this year's NCAA Tournament drawn from around 60 total schools.  Thus the probability of any given program from one of these conferences reaching the NCAA Tournament should be roughly 0.5 since that's probably been true for the top 5-ish conferences essentially forever.

So a mediocre coach from a top 5 conference should, based on probability alone, make the NCAA Tournament about half the time.  The perennial bubble team is therefore mediocre by definition.  If the team falls so far off the bubble that they don't make any postseason tournament that's not mediocrity, that's failure. 

Consider Weber's last six seasons at Illinois playing with his own recruits: 3 NCAAs (50%, the very definition of mediocrity), 1 NIT & 2 seasons with no postseason play.  That's mediocrity in a top 5 conference.  It's neither bad nor good, it's just a little less than average. 

Wooly & Asbury weren't mediocrities, they were failures.  Particularly pathetic ones at that. 

I wouldn't disagree with most of that. To me mediocrity was when most fans quit caring, good or bad. I don't think we're in position for that to happen again, I think our fans want us to at least continue to be competitive. We may not completely agree on what "competitive" means, but it at least means NCAAs more often than not.

Whether the fans care or not has little, if anything, to do with the performance of the program which is measured by wins & losses and/or NCAA Tournament appearances. 

[AzCat]

The voice. I can't get over it.

Yeah, plus oscar comes across a bit lacksadaisical.

It's a very mediocre voice. 

[kso_FAN]

Whether the fans care or not has little, if anything, to do with the performance of the program which is measured by wins & losses and/or NCAA Tournament appearances. 

At K-State they've been very tied together. The problem was football was doing so well nobody of importance cared that only 5-6K were showing up to basketball games. I was at the majority of those games when nothing was being done, and I honestly don't think that will happen again.

[AzCat]

Whether the fans care or not has little, if anything, to do with the performance of the program which is measured by wins & losses and/or NCAA Tournament appearances. 

At K-State they've been very tied together. The problem was football was doing so well nobody of importance cared that only 5-6K were showing up to basketball games. I was at the majority of those games when nothing was being done, and I honestly don't think that will happen again.

Fan support is usually a trailing, not leading, indicator of success.  There's room for both a successful football program and a successful basketball program at KSU.  If they're both good the fans will come, if not they won't. 

[naturalselection]

Whether the fans care or not has little, if anything, to do with the performance of the program which is measured by wins & losses and/or NCAA Tournament appearances. 

At K-State they've been very tied together. The problem was football was doing so well nobody of importance cared that only 5-6K were showing up to basketball games. I was at the majority of those games when nothing was being done, and I honestly don't think that will happen again.

Do I understand your position now _FAN as believing that Weber's ceiling is "ok-pretty good" and his floor is "mediocre"? 

Do you see how that might be tough to get rid of? 

I don't think that we've reached a point as a fan base that we can keep enthusiasm for the program going though 4-5 years of "ok" basketball.  I could see a good tourney run next season (sweet 16+) followed by exactly what AZ was talking about in his definition.  The NCAA's around half the seasons.  "Bad" seasons being a handful of games under .500 (with "young" teams) in conference.  The "good" years being a few over.  I could see fan support not falling back to Asbury/Wolly days, but back into the 8-9k average. 

I could see that still being a tough fire for any AD 5-6 years from now.  We're going to have a coach who is probably a really good guy.  An "average joe" dude.  One who will probably have a very clean program.  Probably graduate players.  I don't think it's much of a stretch to be a decade down the road with this coach and never have any real "excitement" in basketball (what I consider excitement now), but at the same time never have a clean break opportunity. 

In the end, not being quite as bad off as we were after the dark ages, but also not taking any steps forward.  Which is even more daunting at a time when college athletics in general is in upheaval, and we need a K-State brand more then ever (potentially). 

[Barry McCockner]

One thing is certain:  It is MUCH more likely that a new AD will fire a mediocre coach that he didn't hire.

[AzCat]

One thing is certain:  It is MUCH more likely that a new AD will fire a mediocre coach that he didn't hire.

If Wooly had made an NCAA appearance every third year or so he'd still be KSU's coach today.   Most of the 'tucks were fine with Wooly even at the end despite the fact that he'd never finished better than 4 games under .500 in conference.   

Weber leaves in a coffin (hello athletic department friends: this is a reference to his being here until he dies of natural causes at a ripe old age) or of his own volition.  At KSU he'll be so popular that there'll be no way to remove him.  The 'tucks are perfectly willing to settle for 6th or 7th when 1st is available.

[naturalselection]

One thing is certain:  It is MUCH more likely that a new AD will fire a mediocre coach that he didn't hire.

This assumes a new AD.  And as was just pointed out still doesn't ensure "average" isn't tolerated. 

[williamthewildcat]

No way.

oscar is a loser. He'll be a catastrophic loser/failure here.

[mcmwcat]

 

The voice. I can't get over it.

Yeah, plus oscar comes across a bit lacksadaisical.

 

[unleashthemob]

he's 55, and is here to collect a retirement check, what incentive does he have? I bet he'll take the team out for chicken nuggets though if they win, or let a couple of them stay over night in the spare bed room

[catzacker]

I have always thought that a lot of the ksu fan base would have made fantastic nazis (admittingly this is true in most fan bases), however after reading that blog and thinking about it, I am wrong.  The ksu fan base would have made fantastic Poles or Swedes.  Completely content with being dominated so long as they have running water and some bread, regardless of how much liberty they used to have.  Their standards of living, of what was acceptable changed when they failed to fight for the life they deserved and instead chose appeasement. 

[Cartierfor3]

Good write up _FAN, I agree with the basic ideas in the blog.  I'm on #teamGiveWeberAChance, and I hope he has a 5 year run similar to Frank's.  But if we slip down to the 15-18 win type of seasons, I'm afraid that the apathy we saw in the late 90s/2000s will come back quickly, and you'll see 6,000 fans for home games against conference teams, and that bums me out.  I've loved the passion for KSU basketball the fan base has had in recent years, just hope it isn't washed away 2 years from now. 

[kso_FAN]

Good write up _FAN, I agree with the basic ideas in the blog.  I'm on #teamGiveWeberAChance, and I hope he has a 5 year run similar to Frank's.  But if we slip down to the 15-18 win type of seasons, I'm afraid that the apathy we saw in the late 90s/2000s will come back quickly, and you'll see 6,000 fans for home games against conference teams, and that bums me out.  I've loved the passion for KSU basketball the fan base has had in recent years, just hope it isn't washed away 2 years from now. 

I honestly believe that wouldn't happen again now. That apathy came with back to back to back poor hires. The cumulative effect of Altman failing, then Asbury failing, and then an absolutely awful hire led to that. And because football was king no one cared enough to do anything about it.

I think if Weber has a run of below .500 conference play, more NITs than NCAAs, etc. he'll be gone quickly. Just like Atlman was. I know that if he has been here 3 years and his conference record is below .500 and he has only 1 NCAA I'll want him gone.