Author Topic: ksu ladycats  (Read 188850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kim carnes

  • chingon!
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13551
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #800 on: March 30, 2014, 09:56:31 PM »

Offline fun muffin

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1575
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #801 on: March 30, 2014, 10:04:25 PM »
Arkansas hired Jimmy Dykes

 :lol:

looks like a terrific women's basketball hire to me.

Offline bones129

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12132
  • RUN! Tell all the other curs the Law's coming!
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #802 on: March 30, 2014, 11:08:51 PM »
Arkansas hired Jimmy Dykes

 :lol:

looks like a terrific women's basketball hire to me.

This ought to be interesting. Saw some stuff on the 'net earier today where Arkansas was bragging up how many games Dykes has called and watched, and even how many practices at different schools he's watched, in the many years since he last coached.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #803 on: March 31, 2014, 06:44:05 PM »
Arkansas hired Jimmy Dykes

When I saw this on Saturday, I immediately thought of Kim English

Offline WillieWatanabe

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 19275
  • We'll always have Salt Lake
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #804 on: March 31, 2014, 06:48:44 PM »
Arkansas hired Jimmy Dykes

When I saw this on Saturday, I immediately thought of Kim English

surprised he didn't have much to say.
Sometimes I think of the Book of Job and how God likes to really eff with people.
- chunkles

Offline bones129

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12132
  • RUN! Tell all the other curs the Law's coming!
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #805 on: April 03, 2014, 12:26:18 AM »
Are Deb or any of her assistants (other than Claire and Tasha, who are staying at KSU) in the mix for other jobs? Searched the 'net a bit ago with no results.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #806 on: April 06, 2014, 06:24:05 PM »
We'll look at that.  While the men's NCAA Tourney and obviously the MF4 features one nip/tuck game after another.   The first game of WFF features one team up 17 at half. 

But by all means let's keep spending millions on this sport. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #807 on: April 07, 2014, 12:06:13 AM »
We'll look at that.  While the men's NCAA Tourney and obviously the MF4 features one nip/tuck game after another.   The first game of WFF features one team up 17 at half. 

But by all means let's keep spending millions on this sport. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been waiting for this grooved fastball for seemingly a decade, gonna feel great to smash this one 520 ft.


The women's NCAA tournament is 32 years old. At that point in men's tournament history, 1972, the NCAA was less competitive than the women's is now. You were like 30 years old in '72 which may account for the poor memory. In 1972 UCLA were in the processing of winning 7 straight NCAA Championships and 10 out of 12, and they started their 88 game winning streak. Thankfully in 1972 we didn't have a vocal group of sexists oddly wanting to kill a sport because it wasn't as competitive as they like even though they had the option of oh...not watch something they don't like.

Women's college basketball isn't going anywhere, there are federal laws ensuring this. I'm going to be so happy to see this sport continue to grow, I love it. I'll maintain my sanity to continuing to not watch or care about sports I don't like. You should try it, it feels great to be unburdened by worrying about why rugby gets to be on tv.



Thanks for that dax, that was a great birthday present to me, it felt much better than I thought it would.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #808 on: April 07, 2014, 06:50:55 AM »
We'll look at that.  While the men's NCAA Tourney and obviously the MF4 features one nip/tuck game after another.   The first game of WFF features one team up 17 at half. 

But by all means let's keep spending millions on this sport. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been waiting for this grooved fastball for seemingly a decade, gonna feel great to smash this one 520 ft.


The women's NCAA tournament is 32 years old. At that point in men's tournament history, 1972, the NCAA was less competitive than the women's is now. You were like 30 years old in '72 which may account for the poor memory. In 1972 UCLA were in the processing of winning 7 straight NCAA Championships and 10 out of 12, and they started their 88 game winning streak. Thankfully in 1972 we didn't have a vocal group of sexists oddly wanting to kill a sport because it wasn't as competitive as they like even though they had the option of oh...not watch something they don't like.

Women's college basketball isn't going anywhere, there are federal laws ensuring this. I'm going to be so happy to see this sport continue to grow, I love it. I'll maintain my sanity to continuing to not watch or care about sports I don't like. You should try it, it feels great to be unburdened by worrying about why rugby gets to be on tv.



Thanks for that dax, that was a great birthday present to me, it felt much better than I thought it would.

I knew that's exactly what you were going to say, so pathetically typical.  Sad. 

It might literally be the biggest strawman ever relative to college athletic discussion to compare the current period of college athletics to anything in college athletics 30 or 40 years ago and beyond.   

When John Wooden started winning his championships at UCLA there were literally schools that didn't allow African-American players to be on their basketball team, in some cases, they barely even allowed African Americans and other people of color into their institutions.   

The money spent on athletics, that being the ENTIRE athletic department at the vast majority of schools . . . well let's just say that would have looked upon what a school like K-State spent on women's basketball last year in absolute awe (and for the 10 plus years before that).   John Wooden probably barely made a million dollars from UCLA over the course of 3 plus decades of coaching there.   Deb Patterson for example was paid over $3 million in her last 5 years. 

The NCAA Women's Tournament was propelled into venues, coverage and notoriety on a rocket ship, literally riding the coat tails of the modern men's National Tourney.    It took decades for the men's national tournament to get to the level the women's tourney is now and has been for well over a decade.  Back during in the 50's, 60's and 70's, college basketball and the national tourney were niche sport that was propelled forward by the growing number of people who attended college, but still dwarfed by college football and pro sports.   During that time there was a competing national tournament that was on some levels even bigger than the NCAA men's tourney. 

The differences between then and now make a list a mile long . . . but leave it to MIR. 

I didn't say drop the sport at K-State or anywhere, so why the eff you would even bring up the idiotic throw away of federal law?  Thanks Captain Obvious.   

It's just time to explore other sports opportunities for women at K-State, and increase the budgets for the other existing women's sports at the expense of women's basketball at K-State.   Hopefully the $300K that K-State is saving on the new basketball coaches salary is going to be promptly moved to volleyball and women's track. 

« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 07:47:31 AM by sonofdaxjones »

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #809 on: April 07, 2014, 08:34:32 AM »
Your argument is essentially more money is spent on women's college basketball now than was spent on men's basketball in 1972. My reply is, no crap. I'm not sure what how much money is spent on has to do with giving the sport time to develop. The premise of your first post was a ridiculous, flimsy mess to start with. Why even try to make a larger point about a team having a 17 point lead at halftime at the final four; as if there are never blow outs at the men's final four? Also not sure what the final four has to do with what K-State spends on basketball and volleyball. I'm interested in this Dax scale of spending as it relates to your enjoyment though and how it works as far as sports are funded. If Notre Dame and UConn play a game that's decided by a buzzer beater will you call ESPN and request a bonus for those girls playing a men's sport?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #810 on: April 07, 2014, 08:59:16 AM »
Your argument is essentially more money is spent on women's college basketball now than was spent on men's basketball in 1972. My reply is, no crap. I'm not sure what how much money is spent on has to do with giving the sport time to develop. The premise of your first post was a ridiculous, flimsy mess to start with. Why even try to make a larger point about a team having a 17 point lead at halftime at the final four; as if there are never blow outs at the men's final four? Also not sure what the final four has to do with what K-State spends on basketball and volleyball. I'm interested in this Dax scale of spending as it relates to your enjoyment though and how it works as far as sports are funded. If Notre Dame and UConn play a game that's decided by a buzzer beater will you call ESPN and request a bonus for those girls playing a men's sport?

It's hard to discuss this topic with someone who actually tries to compare college athletics from around 1995 and beyond with college athletics from the 60's and 70's.  I brought up money as being one of many huge differences, did you not see where I said the list of differences from then to now is substantial??  (of course you didn't)

I look at it from a perspective of what's more likely to get K-State that elusive national title and I see a better opportunity to do that coming from several other women's sports.  It's not going to happen with WBB.    Again, taking the $300K saved from Deb's ridiculous contract and moving it to other women's sports is an excellent start, they can use it.   But that's probably not going to happen.   It's going to take less to move the needle substantially in other sports than it is with women's hoops. 












Offline PIPE

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
  • Always a pessimist
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #811 on: April 07, 2014, 03:54:25 PM »
Man, watching MIR and dax argue over woman's bball is better than watching...........woman's bball


I just hope someone other than Uconn wins it though, this is absurd...plus Uconn's players are woof

Bring back Skyler Diggins :blush:
Awaiting the inevitable KITN

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #812 on: April 07, 2014, 04:11:34 PM »
I didn't say a damn thing about the 50s or 60s. You listed two differences and the other difference was absurd so I chose to ignore it. In 1972 there were not major college basketball schools that didn't allow black players. It also speaks to my point about college basketball at the time still developing. Do you have any more differences?

Also the other women's sports you speak of have less parity than women's basketball. Volleyball? You serious? Volleyball is far and away my favorite women's sport but we don't have a better shot at winning a volleyball championship than basketball, that's preposterous.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #813 on: April 07, 2014, 04:14:53 PM »
Man, watching MIR and dax argue over woman's bball is better than watching...........woman's bball


I just hope someone other than Uconn wins it though, this is absurd...plus Uconn's players are woof

Bring back Skyler Diggins :blush:

Notre Dame won't win, their best player tore her ACL, I'm shocked they beat Stanford.


Stop being creepy

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #814 on: April 07, 2014, 04:48:05 PM »
I didn't say a damn thing about the 50s or 60s. You listed two differences and the other difference was absurd so I chose to ignore it. In 1972 there were not major college basketball schools that didn't allow black players. It also speaks to my point about college basketball at the time still developing. Do you have any more differences?

Also the other women's sports you speak of have less parity than women's basketball. Volleyball? You serious? Volleyball is far and away my favorite women's sport but we don't have a better shot at winning a volleyball championship than basketball, that's preposterous.

Give volleyball the Women's b-ball budget and I'll take my chances.

Look, you're just pissed that women's college basketball, despite having a meteoric rise in terms of notoriety on the coat tails of the expansion of proliferation of the men's game is still pretty much solely dominated by about 2 to 4 programs.   

There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference between 1972 and the mid to late 60's, so get real.   You used poor examples from a by gone era when everyone with a clue (so that would exclude perpetually angry MIR) knows that there's been a massive series of paradigm shifts in college athletics that makes comparisons of the current era we're in, to those days idiotic and absurd.







Offline Kid In the Hall

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 888
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #815 on: April 07, 2014, 07:53:09 PM »
Give volleyball equestrian the Women's b-ball budget and I'll take my chances K-State becomes the UConn of equestrian!

Offline kim carnes

  • chingon!
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13551
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #816 on: April 07, 2014, 08:21:42 PM »
Man, watching MIR and dax argue over woman's bball is better than watching...........woman's bball


I just hope someone other than Uconn wins it though, this is absurd...plus Uconn's players are woof

Bring back Skyler Diggins :blush:

Notre Dame won't win, their best player tore her ACL, I'm shocked they beat Stanford.


Stop being creepy

they didn't beat stanford, they beat maryland

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #817 on: April 07, 2014, 10:00:09 PM »
I didn't say a damn thing about the 50s or 60s. You listed two differences and the other difference was absurd so I chose to ignore it. In 1972 there were not major college basketball schools that didn't allow black players. It also speaks to my point about college basketball at the time still developing. Do you have any more differences?

Also the other women's sports you speak of have less parity than women's basketball. Volleyball? You serious? Volleyball is far and away my favorite women's sport but we don't have a better shot at winning a volleyball championship than basketball, that's preposterous.

Give volleyball the Women's b-ball budget and I'll take my chances.

Look, you're just pissed that women's college basketball, despite having a meteoric rise in terms of notoriety on the coat tails of the expansion of proliferation of the men's game is still pretty much solely dominated by about 2 to 4 programs.   

There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference between 1972 and the mid to late 60's, so get real.   You used poor examples from a by gone era when everyone with a clue (so that would exclude perpetually angry MIR) knows that there's been a massive series of paradigm shifts in college athletics that makes comparisons of the current era we're in, to those days idiotic and absurd.

I'm pissed? Okay if you insist. Not sure why I would be pissed about it considering it was my point. Also not sure why you keep talking about the amount of money that is in college basketball, what does that have to do with how the game is being developed? You were the one that compared a sport to another sport that is twice as old, I simply pointed out that it's silly to compare those two on that basis. I mean don't you have kids older than NCAA women's basketball? In the early 90s there were places in Oklahoma and Iowa that still played 6 on 6 girls basketball in high school. If course there is going to be an inequity of talent distribution. I'm sitting here watching UConn and Kentucky playing in the men's championship game the men's tournament is 76 years old and the same damn 5 teams seem to be the only schools who win, why are we pouring so much money into men's basketball for this?

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #818 on: April 07, 2014, 10:02:32 PM »
Man, watching MIR and dax argue over woman's bball is better than watching...........woman's bball


I just hope someone other than Uconn wins it though, this is absurd...plus Uconn's players are woof

Bring back Skyler Diggins :blush:

Notre Dame won't win, their best player tore her ACL, I'm shocked they beat Stanford.


Stop being creepy

they didn't beat stanford, they beat maryland

Yep them too, sorry about that, good correction kc

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #819 on: April 08, 2014, 07:42:56 AM »
I didn't say a damn thing about the 50s or 60s. You listed two differences and the other difference was absurd so I chose to ignore it. In 1972 there were not major college basketball schools that didn't allow black players. It also speaks to my point about college basketball at the time still developing. Do you have any more differences?

Also the other women's sports you speak of have less parity than women's basketball. Volleyball? You serious? Volleyball is far and away my favorite women's sport but we don't have a better shot at winning a volleyball championship than basketball, that's preposterous.

Give volleyball the Women's b-ball budget and I'll take my chances.

Look, you're just pissed that women's college basketball, despite having a meteoric rise in terms of notoriety on the coat tails of the expansion of proliferation of the men's game is still pretty much solely dominated by about 2 to 4 programs.   

There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference between 1972 and the mid to late 60's, so get real.   You used poor examples from a by gone era when everyone with a clue (so that would exclude perpetually angry MIR) knows that there's been a massive series of paradigm shifts in college athletics that makes comparisons of the current era we're in, to those days idiotic and absurd.

I'm pissed? Okay if you insist. Not sure why I would be pissed about it considering it was my point. Also not sure why you keep talking about the amount of money that is in college basketball, what does that have to do with how the game is being developed? You were the one that compared a sport to another sport that is twice as old, I simply pointed out that it's silly to compare those two on that basis. I mean don't you have kids older than NCAA women's basketball? In the early 90s there were places in Oklahoma and Iowa that still played 6 on 6 girls basketball in high school. If course there is going to be an inequity of talent distribution. I'm sitting here watching UConn and Kentucky playing in the men's championship game the men's tournament is 76 years old and the same damn 5 teams seem to be the only schools who win, why are we pouring so much money into men's basketball for this?

The difference is that unlike many games on the women's side, most of the men's games go down to the wire.   

LOL, at having kids older tham NCAA women's basketball, I'm not that much older than many of the people who post on this board.   I'll pull a reverse MIR here and claim age bigotry, never expected that from you MIR, kind of shocked. 

Time to have a paradigm shift at K-State,  de-emphasize funding of women's basketball and move the money to other women's sports and make a run at national prominence with them.   It's not going to happen in women's hoops at K-State.  Just my opinion.   


Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #820 on: April 08, 2014, 03:24:39 PM »
The difference is that unlike many games on the women's side, most of the men's games go down to the wire.   

LOL, at having kids older tham NCAA women's basketball, I'm not that much older than many of the people who post on this board.   I'll pull a reverse MIR here and claim age bigotry, never expected that from you MIR, kind of shocked. 

Time to have a paradigm shift at K-State,  de-emphasize funding of women's basketball and move the money to other women's sports and make a run at national prominence with them.   It's not going to happen in women's hoops at K-State.  Just my opinion.

First of all, link? I think the men's margin of victory is lower too, I have not once claimed otherwise. That being said, I'm not sure the difference is large enough where you can claim that most men's games go to the wire and women don't. That's a factual statement that has not been vetted.

The problem with your redistributing wbb money to say volleyball, is that volleyball does not come close to have the revenue producing power that basketball does, it also won't give us a significantly higher chance at winning a nc.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #821 on: April 08, 2014, 03:29:37 PM »
football has the highest potential for revenue, and we came pretty close to winning a nc in that.  maybe we should just put all our money into football  :dunno:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44810
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #822 on: April 08, 2014, 03:59:15 PM »
football has the highest potential for revenue, and we came pretty close to winning a nc in that.  maybe we should just put all our money into football  :dunno:

Brilliant, why didn't anyone think of this before?

Offline wazucat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #823 on: April 08, 2014, 08:50:30 PM »
I don't know what Curries agenda ( or if there is an agenda) is regarding Deb or WBB in general;  but it seems hard to imagine he canned her for cost savings alone when the department he runs is showing surplus "earnings".  I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ONE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP but how does one identify which Olympic sport to feed that might have such a result?  Track maybe  :dunno: seems KU won the championship a year ago with basically one outstanding world class runner and a nice supporting cast.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: ksu ladycats
« Reply #824 on: April 09, 2014, 08:29:28 AM »
30 plus years into the women's National Tourney, 2 undefeated teams and a  :zzz: .   

All women's sports lose money hand over fist.   For example, I went back and looked at the 2010-11 season when the K-State women finished third in the conference.   They still posted a net loss of nearly $2 million.   Their revenue was only about $40-$50K more than the last couple of years when they finished at the bottom.

Let's go back to '07-'08 a Big 12 Championship Season.  Women's hoops at K-State posted a net loss of nearly $1.4 million.   

Women's hoops at K-State is likely always going to post multi-million dollar losses, time to re-shift the focus and go for the trophies in another women's sport.   Saying the other sports aren't going to do any better and aren't going to generate as much revenue is utterly irrelevant to me because the women's sports at K-State will lose millions no matter how good they are.  WBB @ K-State losses millions during the very best of times.   

Time to give another women's sport a better shot, and for one that has always had the opportunity to take bigger steps on the national stage but couldn't because of lack of funding.   That will likely require a more aggressive recruiting process, or a new coach.   The current coach is quite good at coaching, but not so good at recruiting.