Going Under...

[CatMission]

Just #1 precluded #2 from happening. Brad is 100% TeamFrank and the way things evolved and ended between Currie and Frank was so bad, I'm not sure Brad would ever come home with Currie in charge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ptolemy]

 Someone on here  articulated this first, but it bears repeating...if I got a terminal diagnosis of 6 months tomorrow I would run over Currie and Oscar in the street with my car. I'm confident that God would forgive the whole murder thing because I would have been acting for the good of KStaters for the next 20 years.

[ednksu]

I was more angry about hiring oscar than not hiring Brad last year

I totally disagree with this.  After oscar's first couple year we had people fooled into believing he could be breaking his trends. oscar was a bad pick.  The worse thing though, was not firing him for being a loser when you have a proven winner ready to take over. oscar's hire was a C-  unimaginative, retread, with no future.  Keeping him was an F and should cost someone a job.  Hiring Brad last year would have been a solid B at worst.

[DQ12]

Brad would have taken the job you weirdos.

[catastrophe]

sitting on his hands during the brad stuff last year was currie's worst transgression imo.  I hated that he hired oscar, but even more than that, i hated that he didn't get rid of him last year.

it was such a no-brainer move that the entire fanbase was clamoring for.

Agreed. For me, this is by far the biggest indictment on Currie's judgment.

If we end up hiring a boring FB coach and find out Currie didn't even talk to Venables, he should be gone.

Should we give him that chance to screw it up though?

First, I think it's dumb to assume that we could get a better overall AD. I have also said several times that just because Currie went "safe" with BBall doesn't mean he would do the same in the major revenue generating sport.

This is a guy who prides himself (and rightfully so) on the profitability of the athletic department. If we dip below expectations in FB, I don't see it staying that way.

[deputy dawg]

I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

[ksupamplemousse]

I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

[pissclams]

I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard. 

[kslim]

I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard.

mittie has been okay so i would rate that a 3. he gets -2 for how he handled deb and the woman that wanted to transfer but overall i think he did a good job there

oscar is a 1 its that simple, not only should he have been destroyed for pushing frank out he brought in a proven loser

asst football coaches overall would be a 3, time will tell with guys like collin and whatnot but most jobs are yada yada so we might not even know how well they coached under snyds

[Dr Rick Daris]

I don't get the "how are we going to get a better AD than Currie" argument.  Yeah, the guy is smoothly suburban, but has enjoyed a fortune of riches during his tenure.  A future AD may not look to be as good as Currie, because that AD won't have the coattails of LHCBS to ride, unless of course, they make a brilliant football hire.  Count me in the "we can replace Currie" column.

It's the height of the K-State inferiority complex. John Currie is an above average fundraiser and is below average at talent acquisition/retention/management. Since the latter is far and away the most important part of college athletics, that makes him a below average AD. Any P5 school can attract an average AD, and that's all we'd have to get to be making an upgrade.

rank his coaching hires on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the best


and if you can't understand how a young, first time AD would struggle to manage a personality like frank martin, you're not trying very hard.

mittie gets a 3.5 from me. weber gets a 1.

I can imagine the first time AD/frank martin thing, but I have a hard time brushing off the fact that currie seemed to be instigating a decent portion of it himself. I'm pretty sure he talked to frank all the time about frank cursing, I'm pretty sure he actively tried to get curt Kelly off the team, I'm pretty sure he suspended samuels before one of our biggest games ever without needing to and told samuels about it before he told martin. those aren't really just the acts of a rookie trying to do his best to manage a personality.

[#LIFE]

FYJC

[sys]

i'm happy to acknowledge that martin is difficult.  nonetheless, walking into a bball program experiencing it's best run in 20 years with a popular coach and then having an alum coach be among the hottest coaching candidates in the country four years into your new coach's relatively unpopular and unsuccessful tenure are both situations that are a lot harder to eff up than not eff up.

[Trim]

FYJC&KS.

[catastrophe]

I can imagine the first time AD/frank martin thing, but I have a hard time brushing off the fact that currie seemed to be instigating a decent portion of it himself. I'm pretty sure he talked to frank all the time about frank cursing, I'm pretty sure he actively tried to get curt Kelly off the team, I'm pretty sure he suspended samuels before one of our biggest games ever without needing to and told samuels about it before he told martin. those aren't really just the acts of a rookie trying to do his best to manage a personality.

We have video evidence of oscar's potty mouth.  Why not just send that to Currie and force him to take action?  I mean, it is no wonder where the student section gets it from.

[pissclams]

there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

[nicname]

i'm happy to acknowledge that martin is difficult.  nonetheless, walking into a bball program experiencing it's best run in 20 years with a popular coach and then having an alum coach be among the hottest coaching candidates in the country four years into your new coach's relatively unpopular and unsuccessful tenure are both situations that are a lot harder to eff up than not eff up.

#CaseClosed

[kso_FAN]

there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

I tend to agree with this.

[slackcat]

Miss Frank soooo much.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Xl7IS4m9Y[/youtube]

[Trim]

4:49

[ksupamplemousse]

Currie has shown no indication that he's learned any lessons. From all accounts, his relationship with our HOF football coach is non-existent, and the ol' codger is beating cancer just so Currie can't pick the next coach. Sounds like he's still an insecure loser. I'd welcome him to prove me wrong. I really just want good results. I can live with an annoying AD, I can't live with a bad one though.

[Dr Rick Daris]

there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

Mostly agree. looking back on it, they were both probably a little insecure. Also I gave mittie a 3.5 on a 0-5 scale. That's like really good considering that it's his third year and he has a below .500 conference winning percentage. I mean seriously. 3.5 on a 0-5 is a full point above average.

[ednksu]

4:49

that 3 part split shows exactly the difference in programs

[Powercat Posse]

The love fest for Brad Underwood, IMHO, is based on emotion and not sound judgment. There simply is not enough evidence for a verdict. If oscar Weber had Evans as a guard, I bet K-State is fighting for a Big XII Championship at this very moment. Brad needs to prove himself for a while before I would feel good about his hire.

Yeah, it's too early to know how good of a coach and recruiter Brad will be at OKSt. We all knew Ford was a joke of a coach his entire B12 tenure, he just got a couple really talented players that delayed his firing. Ok St did bring back 4 starters. 1 of those starters (Evans) missed the final 10 B12 games last year. They also brought back Forte after being injured last season.  And there is a possibility that Brad will lose his 4 best players if Carroll decides to turn pro.  But starting 0-6 and being able to rally his team is a good job for a 1st year coach.

Kstate would not be challenging Ku/Baylor for the league title if they had Evans. He'd make us a lot better, but more like top 4 not top 2 potential finish.

[pvegs]

in retrospect that jamar receipt crap was truly absurd. what actually happened? i wasn't as plugged in to the online emaw community then.

[pissclams]

there's absolutely no argument that currie didn't manage frank well in any sense of the word.  my guess is that he was young and power hungry and in his mind needed to show frank who was absolute boss.  he underestimated the difficulty of replacing him and he had the full backing of upks, who played no role in tempering his young padawan, but instead, endorsed his ad's actions.

i kind of conjoin the frank/oscar thing and chalk it up to a big eff up.  important too, to remember, is that frank is not without blame and has at times struggled to get along with his bosses at usc.  and he's changed too.

at the end of the day, for me, the mistakes currie has made are not unforgivable as long as he's grown from them.  and the mittie hire was a great intra-conference hire fwiw, not a 3 jeez we're about to host ncaa games.

Mostly agree. looking back on it, they were both probably a little insecure. Also I gave mittie a 3.5 on a 0-5 scale. That's like really good considering that it's his third year and he has a below .500 conference winning percentage. I mean seriously. 3.5 on a 0-5 is a full point above average.

good point on mittie's percentage

point, daris