Author Topic: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie  (Read 12911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belvis Noland

  • Katpak'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ***
  • Posts: 3964
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2012, 01:54:54 PM »
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU. 

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53978
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2012, 03:23:42 PM »
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU. 

His recruiting was improving, without a doubt. But I think saying he was squarely behind KU, BU, and UT is a fair assessment, and a reasonable expectation for KSU. I don't think we were squarely behind ISU and MU, who is now obviously irrelevant. We might be well behind ISU now, but I don't think it was fair to say Hoiberg was outrecruiting Martin, mainly because there's just not enough info to go off of.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45004
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #77 on: October 31, 2012, 03:50:53 PM »
On the whole, Frank's recruiting was pretty decent.  Especially considering transfers Clemente and Kelly.  I don't intend to come across as dragging Frank through the mud or revising his recruiting history.  He did a much better job recruiting than anybody in the last 20 years not named Huggins.  And when he couldn't get blue chip guys, he got bruisers who played their asses off.  I give him credit for this. 

But, I find it hard to believe that guys on this board who follow our program closely can say with a straight face that they weren't concerned about Frank's recruiting toward the end.   

Frank had reverted to 3* players.  People thought that with the Huggins effect and the NCAA resume, we should have been in on 4* guys with the occassional 5* player.  Basically, recruiting at the level of Baylor and Mizzou.  But Frank wasn't doing that.  He was getting 3* top 150 players.  At the time, this wasn't good enough for many.  And I remember some pretty distinct melt downs with Willy Cauley bolted. 

I dunno.  Frank did a fine job recruiting.  But, by the time he left, we were a middle of the road recruiting program squarely behind KU, Baylor, Mizzou, UT, and even ISU.

Who was mad that we lost Cauley to UK?  I'm assuming it was someone who only posts on the basketball board from January to March.  His recruiting was improving.  He landed Upshaw but the players that really would have told the story were coming later and he left before he would have been given a more permanent judgment.  Tough to say how we would have viewed Frank losing Semi to Duke.  I think it certainly more forgivable that Weber lost him to Duke.  If the rumors we heard about Mo-Kan were true Frank's recruiting certainly would have been seen as a huge problem. 

Sure he had misses, Spradling & Moose is going to suck, who doesn't?  Because he would have had Angel & Upshaw to build a program around I don't know how anyone could have credibly been upset with recruiting the day he left.   

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85565
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #78 on: October 31, 2012, 04:10:25 PM »
I was pretty upset when we lost Willie. He was the guy we recruited hardest, in our backyard playing for our supposed besty AAU and our assistant coach coached his dad at one point. But, I mean, at least it was Cal.

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46762
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #79 on: October 31, 2012, 05:15:27 PM »
as it relates to recruiting, frank martin is/was nails on the juco front.  the guy just seemed to have a knack for finding those diamonds in the juco rough.


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4530
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2012, 01:57:26 AM »
I still, irrationally, want him gone. Someone help me change my mind...

The Martin/Currie relationship didn't work because Currie is a huge dork who loves money. But that's a pretty great asset to have as an AD. He'll get shiny stuff built for us, but basically his entire long term legacy rests on if he can actually make a good football hire. If he can, he's a been a great AD for us.

To this point, Currie has been a B+ AD.  A+ AD who loses a full letter grade because of the Martin debacle.  Aside from that...

Take another letter grade for the Webber debacle

Meh, give him a B-, who the eff was he supposed to get? The best coach we've had since Jimmy Carter left us because he didn't get along with the AD, pretty much have to go hire a pushover at that point.
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang

Offline Belvis Noland

  • Katpak'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ***
  • Posts: 3964
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2012, 10:35:40 AM »
I was excited about Angel and Upshaw.  But, the reality is that Angel and Upshaw were Frank Martin crown jewel recruits.  Upshaw, by Frank's own admission was a huge project that would take a few years to develop.  And Angel might be a 2nd or 3rd team conference PG by the time he's a senior. 

I didn't see Frank's recruiting improving.  Assuming one gives Frank credit for McGruder, Russell, Judge, Pullen, it's near impossible to argue that he was improving upon his early recruiting success.

The fact is that Huggins gave us 5* players.  Frank and Te followed that wave with Judge and some 4* players.  Te left and Frank was bringing in quality 3* players - swinging and missing on all in-state talent (perry ellis, willy cauley, semi ojeleye).  I'm not gonna slam him for losing players to Duke, KU, Kentucky, etc., but it's still dissapointing when they're in-state guys.

Mo-Kan sources were reporting that Frank was a nightmare to deal with on the recruiting trail. 

Maybe Frank had some Elite talent in the pipeline.  I don't think so.  Frank did a great job with the talent he produced.  But, I think back to that Baylor game in the BigXII tournament when Baylor mopped the floor with us and I remember thinking... we just don't have the athletes. 

Will Weber do a better job recruiting?  I have my doubts.  But I'm willing to call a spade a spade.  Martin was a pretty average recruiter without Te and I didn't see it getting better by leaps and bounds.

What I give Frank credit for was realizing that he had gritty 3* guys and molding them into a JYC team of brawlers that out defended and out rebounded teams into winning conference records every year.  It was ugly as crap to watch and, oftentimes, not very entertaining.  But, the results were there.  What scares me is that Weber won't be able to recruit the type of talent to Manhattan that will be necessary to pull off a more "pure" style of basketball, i.e. better ball handlers, shooters, passers.  Who knows, maybe we'll play the same JYC style that Martin reverted to.  I doubt it.               

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53978
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2012, 10:44:27 AM »
Frank has commitments from two 4 star players at South Carolina. :dunno:

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53880
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2012, 10:46:17 AM »
Will Cauley was never going to K-State even befor Cal went all in, he wasn't going to deal with Frank.

It's highly debateable if Upshaw could have even gotten into school and that's saying something and I agree that I don't hold out much hope on Weber recruiting any better.   




Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36838
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2012, 10:51:40 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85565
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #85 on: November 01, 2012, 10:52:39 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53978
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #86 on: November 01, 2012, 10:54:54 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46762
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #87 on: November 01, 2012, 10:58:55 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

oscar apologists out there, you've been warned.  we are on to you.


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39291
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2012, 11:00:11 AM »
I really wanted at least one of the following:

Perry / Semi / Willie

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46762
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2012, 11:02:46 AM »
I really wanted at least one of the following:

Perry / Semi / Willie

we all did. and if it wasn't impossible to recruit to ksu, we would have landed one or more of them.


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85565
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #90 on: November 01, 2012, 11:09:47 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53978
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #91 on: November 01, 2012, 11:10:35 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Yep. Just watch, though.

Offline Belvis Noland

  • Katpak'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ***
  • Posts: 3964
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #92 on: November 01, 2012, 11:13:27 AM »

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.


what?

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85565
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #93 on: November 01, 2012, 11:14:40 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Yep. Just watch, though.

prolly right

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36838
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #94 on: November 01, 2012, 11:15:08 AM »
So we are spiraling toward the can't recruit to Kstate talking point?

no, we are spiraling towards the shitty recruiters can't recruit to Kstate talking point.

You know what Casey posted will be the crutch of oscar apologists.

no, what? the can't recruit to Kansas thing? so quickly GRCOAT is forgotten.

Well be said that 'te was dirty and that oscar will not play that game, does it the right wat, etc.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


Offline Belvis Noland

  • Katpak'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ***
  • Posts: 3964
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #95 on: November 01, 2012, 11:18:38 AM »
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist. 

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53978
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #96 on: November 01, 2012, 11:19:17 AM »

And really, I'm fine with complaining about Frank's recruiting as long as you acknowledge it's only going to get worse now that he's left, which you pretty much did.


what?

What you're saying is very reasonable.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85565
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #97 on: November 01, 2012, 11:20:35 AM »
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist.

being a non-extremist on the issue really leaves you with few peers at goEMAW

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 46762
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #98 on: November 01, 2012, 11:21:10 AM »
Frank has commitments from two 4 star players at South Carolina. :dunno:

i'm guessing frank had offered them while he was still at k-state (to k-state), right? 


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

Offline SleepFighter

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1966
  • I'll wait here for my Cherry Coke Zero.
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently, Clemson went hard after Currie
« Reply #99 on: November 01, 2012, 11:21:54 AM »
I have no idea what's going on here. 

I guess I'm a oscar apologist because I want him to succeed.  But, I'll never tote the "can't recruit to Manhattan" horse crap. 

With directs to Chicago and Dallas, with the BBTF, and the BCS conference affiliation, the right coach can and will recruit to K-State. 

Is Weber that coach?  I don't know yet.  I hope so.  If he's not, I hope we fire him. 

I have no idea why this is a controversial stance - or why this makes me a oscar apologist.

Don't know/care whether you are a oscar apologist or not, but just watch.  The "can't recruit to K-State" talking point is going to come back with a vengeance, whether you individually make that argument or not.