Lets get everyone on the record.

[michigancat]

Currie couldn't have hired anyone better, but he could have hired someone not as bad.

[michigancat]

But I agree not keeping Frank in Manhattan was far worse than hiring oscar.

[sys]

Currie couldn't have hired anyone better, but he could have hired someone not as bad.

less of a bumblefuck, you mean?  yeah, that wouldn't have been hard.


i'll add, before you do so, that there were fantastic options available (pearl  ), but currie would not have considered them.

[michigancat]

Currie couldn't have hired anyone better, but he could have hired someone not as bad.

less of a bumblefuck, you mean?  yeah, that wouldn't have been hard.


i'll add, before you do so, that there were fantastic options available (pearl  ), but currie would not have considered them.

I mean someone that wasn't fired because of losing would have been "not as bad".

[sys]

I mean someone that wasn't fired because of losing would have been "not as bad".

just one facet of his brand.

[SdK]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

 

[8manpick]

Bruceketball: Manhattan Edition  (5 years)
1 NCAA tournament (2013)
2 NITs ('14, '15)
1 no postseason ('16)
1 CBI ('17)
FIRED


Frank: USC Edition (8 years)
1 no postseason this year
1 NIT next year
5 NCAA's and an NIT in the next 6 years
Hired away by another BCS school

[sys]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2),  he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

[michigancat]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2),  he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

Very well said.

[Trim]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2),  he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

Very well said.

Whatever, not real K-State fans.

[Mr Bread]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2), he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

That is a great point and oscar (and Izzo and Keady) will be first and last in line to tell everyone who will listen that it was K-State and not him that led to it.  "It was one of the greatest eight-year runs in K-State history. I worked as hard as was humanly possible everyday for those guys, guess it wasn't enough for some of them."   It's not just the losing and the horrid to watch brand of basketball, but that after it's all said and done he blames it on the program.  "I maxed out that dump, can't help it if it's still a rough ridin' dump." oscar!!  

Trim what do you think of oscar as the ball cancer of coaches?  Yeah you beat it, but you're down a nut.  Sounds pretty close to me as far as similes go seeing as a simile, to be perfect, must both illustrate and ennoble the subject.

[Cartierfor3]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2),  he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

Very well said.

Whatever, not real K-State fans.

  I've been officially designated with this title. 

[Trim]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2), he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

That is a great point and oscar (and Izzo and Keady) will be first and last in line to tell everyone who will listen that it was K-State and not him that led to it.  "It was one of the greatest eight-year runs in K-State history. I worked as hard as was humanly possible everyday for those guys, guess it wasn't enough for some of them."   It's not just the losing and the horrid to watch brand of basketball, but that after it's all said and done he blames it on the program.  "I maxed out that dump, can't help it if it's still a rough ridin' dump." oscar!!  

Trim what do you think of oscar as the ball cancer of coaches?  Yeah you beat it, but you're down a nut.  Sounds pretty close to me as far as similes go seeing as a simile, to be perfect, must both illustrate and ennoble the subject.

That line about the best run in Illinois history - he used it last night.  Some rando illini guy just tweeted me wanting details on the claim re: 80 games lost to injury the year after the national tourney run.  I'm working on posting that whole segment on youtube.  Bear with me.

Ball cancer analogy doesn't work; my remaining ball is super-powered, jeans fit better, great story, all in all not a bad deal.  That first couple monthssucked for sure though.

[Mr Bread]

I have enjoyed sys' posts in this thread. Maybe it was already common knowledge, but I didn't fully understand his viewpoint or where he was coming from until this thread.

my main problems with weber (as opposed to currie) are 1),  that he's incredibly boring.  our best case scenario with him is like purdue or something.  some bland team that wins games but is entirely absent from the national scene.  worst case is the same, minus the wins.  and 2), he's considered a proven coach, if he fails here, especially if he does so slowly, it will lead to the perception that kstate is a school where it is hard to win.  huggins and martin will be viewed as charismatic anomalies.  weber and our pre-huggins 20 year slide will be the norm.  that wouldn't have been true with a splashy, "risky" hire like gottlieb, or pearl, or even the old guy.


i mean, it's also that he's the guy that currie hired.  but if i try to separate that part out.

That is a great point and oscar (and Izzo and Keady) will be first and last in line to tell everyone who will listen that it was K-State and not him that led to it.  "It was one of the greatest eight-year runs in K-State history. I worked as hard as was humanly possible everyday for those guys, guess it wasn't enough for some of them."   It's not just the losing and the horrid to watch brand of basketball, but that after it's all said and done he blames it on the program.  "I maxed out that dump, can't help it if it's still a rough ridin' dump." oscar!!  

Trim what do you think of oscar as the ball cancer of coaches?  Yeah you beat it, but you're down a nut.  Sounds pretty close to me as far as similes go seeing as a simile, to be perfect, must both illustrate and ennoble the subject.

Ball cancer analogy doesn't work; my remaining ball is super-powered, jeans fit better, great story, all in all not a bad deal.  That first couple monthssucked for sure though.

I think John Groce might be my super-powered nut.  I haven't been this excited about college baskeball in general since after the NC game appearance.  Like I bet you had some pretty great times with your bad nut until it turned on you.  I wouldn't have been this way if not for having had and removed my bad nut (oscar).  Like new lease on life, but it still left an indelible mark kind of thing.  Is KSU cats men's hoops my Ball brand jar?    Might still have something here.

[PIPE]

Weber=


Martin=

Currie=   Oh, sorry, OP didn't ask about Currie

[ksupamplemousse]

Martin:
Year 1 - NIT
Year 2 - NCAA 32
Year 3 - NCAA 64
Hired away by Miami - Goes onto to be a living legend on South Beach. He will Frank a ton of players, but his street cred will allow him to sign better classes than Miami deserves. At some point one of his hotshot assistants will do something that involves South Beach and some recruits, and Frank will resign in disgrace/awesomeness. He will go on to be one of those talking heads that the world has forgiven for his transgressions because he is such a genuine guy. He will be the most beloved Cuban sports analyst that the world has ever known. He will do the job for way too long until he is senile and looks batshit crazy on TV, at which point our kids will talk about Frank Martin the same way we talk about Lee Corso. Then we will tell them to shut the eff up and respect their elders.

Weber:
Year 1 - NCAA 32
Year 2 - NCAA 64
Year 3 - Sweet Sixteen
Year 4 - NCAA 64
Year 5 - NCAA 32
Hired away by Purdue - Gene Keady gets his boy a job in his more natural element, the Big 10. Weber goes onto do very Weber-like things. He has learned from his past mistakes at Illinois and will be a good coach as long as he keeps good assistants around the program. He will never set the world on fire, but he will be a successful coach till he retires. People will inexplicably talk about the genius of his X's and O's till civilization collapses and all our records are lost and the oral tradition has let oscar fade from the memory of mankind. (For the record, I hate oscar Weber and John Currie, but not as much as I hate being wrong on record.)

[nicname]

Martin:
Year 1 - NIT
Year 2 - NCAA 32
Year 3 - NCAA 64
Hired away by Miami - Goes onto to be a living legend on South Beach. He will Frank a ton of players, but his street cred will allow him to sign better classes than Miami deserves. At some point one of his hotshot assistants will do something that involves South Beach and some recruits, and Frank will resign in disgrace/awesomeness. He will go on to be one of those talking heads that the world has forgiven for his transgressions because he is such a genuine guy. He will be the most beloved Cuban sports analyst that the world has ever known. He will do the job for way too long until he is senile and looks batshit crazy on TV, at which point our kids will talk about Frank Martin the same way we talk about Lee Corso. Then we will tell them to shut the eff up and respect their elders.

Weber:
Year 1 - NCAA 32
Year 2 - NCAA 64
Year 3 - Sweet Sixteen
Year 4 - NCAA 64
Year 5 - NCAA 32
Hired away by Purdue - Gene Keady gets his boy a job in his more natural element, the Big 10. Weber goes onto do very Weber-like things. He has learned from his past mistakes at Illinois and will be a good coach as long as he keeps good assistants around the program. He will never set the world on fire, but he will be a successful coach till he retires. People will inexplicably talk about the genius of his X's and O's till civilization collapses and all our records are lost and the oral tradition has let oscar fade from the memory of mankind. (For the record, I hate oscar Weber and John Currie, but not as much as I hate being wrong on record.)

So he is going to take over the Purdue job when he is 62-years old?  Not likely.

[JimmyChitwood]

what would lead you to use such a positive word when describing oscar?

he's done good things and bad things.  it's really hard to do as well as he has at times in his career, i don't think it is likely that he just had a run of good luck.  i also don't think that his failures were runs of poor luck.  but there may be more space between bad and weber, or even mediocre and weber, than some here are eager to admit.


i've posted many times that i think it is highly improbable that currie would have hired a better coach than weber, had he hired someone else.  my discontent is not that he hired weber, but that he ran off a better coach in order to do so.

Good post. I agree that its not either good/bad luck.

To me last year's Weber was even more bizarre because it was so much like Mangino's last year at KU.

They were 15-3/4-1, ranked in the Top 25 (in January) and coming off a win over a Top 10 team (OSU) that ended up going to the final 4. Even beat another Top 10 team a couple weeks later (MSU). Then completely fell apart.

It wasn't that bizarre to an Illini fan. We played like crap in many of the games that we won up until that point where we started losing. The OSU game was a victory only because Paul went off that night and could not be stopped (It was an anomaly). The MSU game was laughable. We won, but Green got injured and MSU missed at least 25 layups. Besides our awesome 38 - 33 loss to Penn State at home in 08, it was by far one of the worse college basketball games I've probably ever witnessed..The score was 42 - 41. Most Illini fans last year knew the wheels were going to fall off sooner or later. We just never passed the "eye test" even in games we won. I hope BAM does well for KSU, but he is really stubborn and is going to piss you guys off a lot. His ingame coaching drove me absolutely bat crap crazy lol. Needless to say, I dont miss him.

[gatoveintisiete]

Fun re-read

[420seriouscat69]

A lot of dumbasses outed for sure.

[scottwildcat]

Man...what a read

[gatoveintisiete]

Some real gems in there

[kso_FAN]

Quite a bump. Still early, but oscar has been better than I expected and Frank has been worse.

[michigancat]

*yawn*

[Stevesie60]

It's still early, but this has gone well for K-State in the sense that people have to assume this is the easiest place in the world to win. Hire a fired coach who failed at his last job? He gets a conference championship in his first year and finishes in the top half of the conference a year they were projected to go, what 8th? Fire a coach that was very successful, even got to the Elite 8 in his 3rd year coaching? Well turns out he apparently can't have success at any other school.

Who wouldn't want to coach here?