Author Topic: Stan Talks about Angel  (Read 33218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scottwildcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16430
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #75 on: April 23, 2013, 11:44:11 PM »
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

 :blindfold:

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45938
  • big roas man
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #76 on: April 23, 2013, 11:49:16 PM »
There are people of influence around the program that would see success in the NIT as actual success/progress and I want no part of that. An NIT final four is good for a program like USC and I want Frank to do well there, I wouldn't consider that at the expense of K-State, the opposite actually.

Offline Stevesie60

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17853
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2013, 12:35:20 AM »
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

What if we played Angel's new team?

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45938
  • big roas man
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2013, 12:41:36 AM »
will we beat South Carolina in the NIT?

If we played South Carolina in the NIT it will absolutely be the first time, and hopefully the last, since I became a wildcat that I will actively root against K-State.

What if we played Angel's new team?

He'd have to go somewhere awful to be in the NIT, so yeah I guess Angel too.

Offline kougar24

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5380
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2013, 11:10:22 AM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59606
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2013, 11:11:35 AM »
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.


Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88585
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2013, 11:12:58 AM »
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38085
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2013, 11:13:23 AM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

Offline kougar24

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5380
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2013, 11:15:36 AM »
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

No joke. I'm familiar with #humblebrag...is there a #stupidbrag?

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27691
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2013, 11:22:42 AM »
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

CBI champs are on a badass winning streak too i bet

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88585
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2013, 11:40:59 AM »
Winning the NIT would be the worst.

I aggresively mocked Baylor's twitter when they tweeted they ended the season with the third longest active winning streak behind Louisville and some super pud team that played no post season. What an unbelievably stupid thing to brag about.

CBI champs are on a badass winning streak too i bet

that could have been the pud team that finished in second actually. I didn't really research their schedule.

Offline Stevesie60

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17853
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2013, 11:52:15 AM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)

Online Skipper44

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7629
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #87 on: April 24, 2013, 11:55:29 AM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38085
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #88 on: April 24, 2013, 11:58:33 AM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.

I was at our last NIT home game.  It wasn't a quiet townie event. 

Online Skipper44

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7629
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #89 on: April 24, 2013, 12:42:10 PM »
I too would actively root for us to lose an NIT game.

Winning the NIT would be the worst.

Would rather not make the NIT if we don't make the NCAA's.

You, me and Jake. (And probably a few other people)
NIT is acceptable for a guy building a program but I cringed at the sound of the townie crowds full of little kids for Hugs and Franks NIT home games.

I was at our last NIT home game.  It wasn't a quiet townie event.
I did not mean to imply it was quiet, it was the higher pitched scream of the crowd that seemed much different to me.  More like a boy band concert of something.

Online Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20639
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #90 on: April 24, 2013, 12:58:05 PM »
did anyone say hoskins for massey?

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45938
  • big roas man
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #91 on: April 24, 2013, 11:42:46 PM »
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.

Seriously? Like everyone. Instead of people of influence I should have said 95% of anyone associated with Kansas State. It's not unique to us either. SD posted about Baylor beating their chest after winning the NIT after a huge letdown of a season. Gregg Marshall was giving interviews the week of the Final Four in front of a huge NIT Champions poster. There have been schools that have put their NIT trophy on the cover of their media guide the next season. I'm not aware of any coach being on the hot seat after winning the NIT. People adopt a lemonade out of lemons philosophy. I bet if Kentucky won the NIT those bourbon swilling hillbillies would be online talking trash about how they would have made the Sweet 16 even without Nerlens Noel.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59606
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #92 on: April 25, 2013, 08:16:26 AM »
MIR could you document who these "people of influence" are, you know, the one's that would consider the NIT progress.

Seriously? Like everyone. Instead of people of influence I should have said 95% of anyone associated with Kansas State. It's not unique to us either. SD posted about Baylor beating their chest after winning the NIT after a huge letdown of a season. Gregg Marshall was giving interviews the week of the Final Four in front of a huge NIT Champions poster. There have been schools that have put their NIT trophy on the cover of their media guide the next season. I'm not aware of any coach being on the hot seat after winning the NIT. People adopt a lemonade out of lemons philosophy. I bet if Kentucky won the NIT those bourbon swilling hillbillies would be online talking trash about how they would have made the Sweet 16 even without Nerlens Noel.

Exactly what I thought, no one.

Laughable.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #93 on: April 25, 2013, 08:21:06 AM »
 Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it. 

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59606
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #94 on: April 25, 2013, 08:30:26 AM »
Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it.

Apparently you seem to forget the role of Dr. Jon Wefald in keeping Wooldridge around when Weiser wanted to fire him.   Jack Hartman was only allowed a couple of really bad seasons before he was forced to retire, and that after, by any measure, was a pretty nice run at K-State, with multiple conference titles and deep NCAA tourney runs (with several epic NCAA tourney games in there).    But those were completely different times.  Neither Wooldridge or Asbury were being paid compensation packages of $2 million dollars a year.   There wasn't the mandatory seat donations in Bramlage on the level there is today, there wasn't the revenue expectations of basketball like there is today.   The booster base has expanded significantly.   Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.


Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23381
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #95 on: April 25, 2013, 08:34:02 AM »
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #96 on: April 25, 2013, 08:44:13 AM »
Do we have different people of influence (ie boosters) than we did during asbury and wooly?  Cause they seemed pleased as punch with crap basketball.  Hell, ksu boosters almost let hartman wreck the program and certainly would have let snyder 1.0 do it.

Apparently you seem to forget the role of Dr. Jon Wefald in keeping Wooldridge around when Weiser wanted to fire him.   Jack Hartman was only allowed a couple of really bad seasons before he was forced to retire, and that after, by any measure, was a pretty nice run at K-State, with multiple conference titles and deep NCAA tourney runs (with several epic NCAA tourney games in there).    But those were completely different times.  Neither Wooldridge or Asbury were being paid compensation packages of $2 million dollars a year.   There wasn't the mandatory seat donations in Bramlage on the level there is today, there wasn't the revenue expectations of basketball like there is today.   The booster base has expanded significantly.   Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.



Hartman had one season in his last 4 where he was above .500 (his last @16-14) and in that time didn't finish higher than 5th in the big 8.  I understand the weefer's propensity to control everything.  And adjust asbury's and wooly's compensation to current value.  Which is even irrelevant to me because even if their compensation is low it only highlights the fact that our boosters didn't care.  So my question still remains, what boosters of influence do we have now that are different than 10 years ago?  Hell, vanier had to sign off on bill coming back.

Offline pissclams

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 47955
  • (worst non-premium poster at goEMAW.com)
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #97 on: April 25, 2013, 08:46:10 AM »
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?


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 Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23381
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #98 on: April 25, 2013, 08:50:12 AM »
Back then K-State athletics was limited by the administration as to who they could approach for major donations, and that group consisted of about a half a page in Ernie Barrett's little black book.   Not the case anymore.

some pretty good athletic dept vs foundation money battles currently going on now from what i hear. turf war LA in the late 80's blood/crip type stuff. pretty great.

serious about the AD versus the Foundation?

yeah

Offline WillieWabash

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Stan Talks about Angel
« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2013, 09:17:27 PM »
 :doom: I heard Angel was actually considering going to KU , that can't be true , can it ?