There were a variety of factors/circumstances that were a part of Frank’s beginnings. Just as there were oscar’s. Do we have to compare the two? No – because it’s the wrong question – it’s a waste of time. For every “well but with oscar…” there’s a “well but with Frank”…..it’s a worthless conversation and one we’ve already had…over and over and over….. The conversation…the question...is what is the standard for oscar. The answer shouldn’t have the word “Frank” in it. I don’t care what happened in Frank’s second year. It’s irrelevant Not the same time, not the same circumstances, not the same program. oscar needs to win. I don’t care how many freshman he rolls out there. I don’t care if Spradling is running the point. Win. That’s it. He did that last year. Get to the Tourney.
The question, "what is the standard for oscar" can only be answered by looking at what Frank did. why is this so hard for you? Sans Frank, we're a program with 30 years of losing, no NCAAS, no national brand, no GameDays at OOD. In this context, oscar's standard for success would be making NIT runs with maybe an NCAA sprinkled in.
Of course, oscar's standard is much higher than a few NITs because, obviously, Frank Martin raised the bar beyond that. He will continue to be compared to Frank in every way/shape/form. Just like he was compared to Bill Self at Illinois. Just like the next KU coach will be compared to Self. Just like Frank Martin is compared to South Carolina's coach. Just like Sean will be compared to Bill. This is reality.
This is why Trim isn't "excited" by oscar. oscar is a lame, hand-clasping, raspy voiced pussy, compared to Frank's glaring, boot stomping, persona. I think, in large part, oscar's biggest downfall with EMAWers is his lack of charisma, Illinois record notwithstanding.
