Official:Future Head Coach Watch List *Assuming Currie/AD wins internal struggle

[Panjandrum]

you don't build it because it took up a lot of his time. time that he could've been spending on football according to you. i'm basically just making fun of your point about how currie doesn't have the time to deal with bball here.

frank wanted less of currie from every standpoint. compliance yeah prob, but i also bet that frank also didn't appreciate being forced to write that letter to the collegian about not cussing anymore, etc along with a million other things that had nothing to do w/ compliance. currie micro manages everybody. everybody.

currie was not the athletic director at tennessee. he does not get a plus or a minus for those hires, just like laird veatch doesn't get one for the weber hire.

A guy like Currie will build anything big if he doesn't have to find the money to pay for it.  The momentum for the BTF had already started before he got here; he probably didn't have to do much to get it going.

I don't disagree that Currie isn't a micro-manager.  Frank was doing things that were not to his liking, so he spent time dealing with "Frank things" that he probably didn't want to deal with.  You did a good job listing those examples.  I feel comfortable assuming that he didn't want to go deal with "Frank things".  I do not disagree with you that he should be able to deal with that.  I am fully in your corner on that and also agree that the whole thing with Frank hurt him here, hurt him elsewhere, and set his career back at least a few years.

Again, daris, I don't think Currie should be the AD here.  What happened this spring was a clown show.  I'm not trying to defend.

[pissclams]

i get the feeling after reading some of rick daris's posts in this thread that he has a  huge crush on john currie.  go marry him why don't you? 

[pissclams]

question- who wins a make out session between john currie and rick daris? 

answer- the viewers   omg K-S-U WILDCATS!   

[Panjandrum]

But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me. 

How?  Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years.  How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint?  That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money.  Weber was far from a hot commodity.  A BCS job was in and of itself a gift.  To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane.  Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job.  Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation.  Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way.  $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.

He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.

Agreed that it's too much.  But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.

[Dr Rick Daris]

But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me. 

How?  Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years.  How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint?  That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money.  Weber was far from a hot commodity.  A BCS job was in and of itself a gift.  To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane.  Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job.  Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation.  Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way.  $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.

He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.

Agreed that it's too much.  But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.

i think currie contacted a bunch of coaches and said "ok, here is what i already have on my ledger. take it or leave it. i will not pay you a dime more or a dime less than what frank was scheduled to make." weber was the first to say yes.

[Trim]

But I have no idea how they landed on that number

That's what the budget was for a KSU basketball coach for the next 5 years.  Doubt there was much negotiation.

I think we confirmed this months ago, but Bread sounds like he knows without us searching; Is Weber's 1.3/year post-firing paid regardless of him getting a new job and on top of what he gets paid at his new job, or does the new job's salary mitigate - and in this case, eliminate - what Illinois has to pay him?

[Dr Rick Daris]

also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.

sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up.  that's the most logical scenario.

[Panjandrum]

But knowing what we know about Currie, and how he's so cheap and bean countery, the Weber hire made perfect sense to me. 

How?  Weber was making $1.3 million per his last three seasons at Illinois (post-firing seasons that is; money Illinois will still be paying him just to go away), and Currie hired him for $1.5 million per for five years.  How in the world does that make perfect sense to you from a financial standpoint?  That seems like a terrible, awful waste of money.  Weber was far from a hot commodity.  A BCS job was in and of itself a gift.  To give him a raise and a longer contract all while he'll be pulling in an additional $3.9 million over the first three years from Illinois is rough ridin' insane.  Weber would have sucked Currie's dick for $750K per for a BCS level job.  Weber doesn't need the money; he desperately craves the validation and affirmation.  Currie could, and should, have gotten him on the cheap in a major, major way.  $1.5 million is flash money for an up-and-comer, not some just crap-canned hack looking for redemption.

He's paying him Frank's contract for the most part.

Agreed that it's too much.  But I have no idea how they landed on that number, but it's less than what we would have had to pay for Tad Boyle.

i think currie contacted a bunch of coaches and said "ok, here is what i already have on my ledger. take it or leave it. i will not pay you a dime more or a dime less than what frank was scheduled to make." weber was the first to say yes.

I believe that as well, but that's just an assumption on my part.

[Panjandrum]

also, i don't believe the whole bill pusing for sean as HC.

I don't really have many "inside" guys, but this is one piece of information that I feel comfortable in believing.

Capt. Crap somewhat alluded to it the other day as well.

[michigancat]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

[DQ12]

I would prefer the head coach have some experience coaching under Snyder or a Snyder disciple. 

[Mr Bread]

But I have no idea how they landed on that number

That's what the budget was for a KSU basketball coach for the next 5 years.  Doubt there was much negotiation.

I think we confirmed this months ago, but Bread sounds like he knows without us searching; Is Weber's 1.3/year post-firing paid regardless of him getting a new job and on top of what he gets paid at his new job, or does the new job's salary mitigate - and in this case, eliminate - what Illinois has to pay him?

He gets it all regardless of future compensation.  No offset.  Our former AD was the tuckiest of tucks.  He hired Weber in the first place because he had been jilted by Kruger and Self.  He knew Weber would never leave of his own accord nor get the program in trouble with the NCAA.  Better to be safe than good.  To be honest though, who in their right mind would have thought it would matter, amirite?   

[ChiComCat]

also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.

sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up.  that's the most logical scenario.

I think Bill is pushing for Sean to get another coaching job somewhere on his coaching tree and does not realistically expect him to be named head coach here.

[Stevesie60]

I have a hard time believing that Bill would feel wronged if the AD didn't promote a Special Teams Coordinator to Head Coach.

[Panjandrum]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubt Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.

[Dr Rick Daris]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

yep. quite the pickle here.

[michigancat]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.

Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.

[Panjandrum]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.

Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.

South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read.  We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.

You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year.  I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.

If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame.  Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal.  I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.

And maybe that's my ultimate point.  We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did.  He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.

[kostakio]

also, i don't believe the whole bill pushing for sean as HC.

sean had a non staff position at kstate where he hung out around the team and helped with kickers, etc for years and years and years and was only added to a staff position after currie came. my guess is that it was a way for the fball team to have another coach without having that person be on staff. basically a way to get them an extra coach. currie killed that position and then bill put sean on staff when an opening came up.  that's the most logical scenario.

I think Bill is pushing for Sean to get another coaching job somewhere on his coaching tree and does not realistically expect him to be named head coach here.

My feel is Bill will want it to go to Dimel and he'll expect Sean to be kept on staff.  Sean was never replaced in his admin role so I tend to believe him going on staff was a cost cutting move to eliminate a football position. His pay in the admin role was higher then what most schools pay for that and I'm guessing Currie balked at it so Bill put him on staff rather then cutting his pay.  Previously Sean had an associate AD title along with the football title to justify the pay but my guess Currie didn't like that.   I think Sean still does a lot of the same admin functions he was doing before. 

I'll be curious to see if Joe Gordon's position is ever filled I have a feeling it won't be.   I believe Gordon will be on the coaching staff at some point before Bill retires.  Maybe as soon as next year depending on how long Hayes keeps coaching. 

[kostakio]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.

Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.

South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read.  We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.

You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year.  I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.

If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame.  Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal.  I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.

And maybe that's my ultimate point.  We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did.  He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.

A few hundred grand a year is nothing though.  Frank would bring in that much incremental revenue to the bball team with ease.   It wasn't a financial decision if it was then it would have been a no brainer to keep Frank. 

[michigancat]

also, if currie really did ship frank off because he was demanding and took up a lot of john's time like panjandrum is suggesting, then currie needs to be let go immediately. that's inexcusable.

Yeah. Also, if he's really just a "bean counter" as Pan suggests, then keeping Frank was the safest option (by far).

We would have had to ultimately re-negotiate his contract at least once more to price him out of non-elite jobs assuming he would have wanted to stay here in the first place, and I doubting Currie wanted to do that for several different reasons, personal and professional.

Frank was already priced out of non-elite jobs. And even if Currie had to give him a significant raise, it still would have been the "safest" financial situation.

South Carolina is paying him $1.9 million this year, or that's what I thought that I read.  We were going to pay him $1.5 or $1.6, or that's what I recall.

You're also assuming that Currie thinks Frank would be worth $1.9 million a year.  I think everyone has pretty much established that he didn't think that, and I'll argue (and am arguing, I guess) that Currie doesn't want to pay someone that much money to be a basketball coach.

If Frank and Weber have similar escalator clauses in their contracts, Weber will probably be $300-500K behind where Martin is at, on average, every year over the same time frame.  Over the course of five years, that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5-2.5 million less over the life of the deal.  I'm saying that I just don't think Currie values basketball enough to give up that much money on a coach he feels is replaceable.

And maybe that's my ultimate point.  We didn't feel like Frank was replaceable, and Currie did.  He wasn't going to extend another coach he felt like he had to babysit (for the reasons daris mentioned), and he was going to hire someone on the cheap that looked he justified the salary on paper and was the most non-Frank person in existence.

yeah, Frank would have taken less than 1.9 if he didn't hate Currie. I should have specified that he was over-priced for non-elite jobs assuming he didn't hate his boss.

Also, you're ignoring the revenue we will lose under Weber. (It will be more than the savings in salary.)

[steve dave]

I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this.  I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone. 

[Panjandrum]

yeah, Frank would have taken less than 1.9 if he didn't hate Currie. I should have specified that he was over-priced for non-elite jobs assuming he didn't hate his boss.

Also, you're ignoring the revenue we will lose under Weber. (It will be more than the savings in salary.)

This goes back to my point where if it fails (which is entirely possible) Currie can go to Schulz and rationalize his safe hire because it makes sense on paper.

Had he hired Gottlieb (which both you and I were adamantly in support of), and it failed, it would have been harder to rationalize as he didn't have previous coaching experience.

There are a plethora of people in between Gottlieb and Weber in terms of price and experience, that would have been better choices, but that's something we can probably better identify than John Currie because we probably spend more time looking at crap like this than he does.  He hires a search firm, tells them what he's willing to pay, they give him a list of names, and he locks himself in a hotel room and starts calling people. We'd debate the merits of Doug Gottlieb, and he's got a list of guys that includes oscar Weber, Doc Sadler, Larry Eustachy, and God knows who else.

Based on what we were willing to pay, if he wanted BCS coaching experience (and I'm betting he did), I'm betting Weber probably was the best fish in that pond.  Which goes back to my point that he probably didn't want to spend that much time or money on basketball, therefore, Weber was the perfect fit.  Won't cost more than what was budgeted, won't cause issues from a compliance standpoint, and won't force him to deal with tuck donors that don't like a coach that swears. 

Check, check, and check. Get oscar's measurements and fit him for a purple jacket.

[ChiComCat]

I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this.  I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone. 

This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this.  Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.

[steve dave]

I know for a fact that Bill wants Sean to be head coach and that he sees Currie as a barrier to this.  I didn't think that was really in dispute by anyone. 

This wouldn't surprise me or anything, but I've just always assumed Bill was more reasonable than this.  Maybe wanted him to be our head coach, but figured if he ended up somewhere on the coaching tree for 3 years and we hire another Ron Prince, Sean could try and be the savior this time.

he promoted him from never coached in his life to associate head coach.