Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Frank Martin to South Carolina?

rolandftw said:
Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a troll. I'm a CU fan, new to the forum/long time browser. Had just heard of the rumor, and didn't know if anyone else here knew more about it.
Click to expand...

Im just ****in with you man. Welcome to the board, I heard the rumor as well, I don't think we should be too worried about this. Tad already said he isn't going anywhere and not to worry about any rumors we hear. Don't stress, just grab me a beer and a sandwich. NOW!
 
I realize this "your coach getting offers elsewhere" bull**** is a good problem to have, but I'm ****ing annoyed as hell by it.
 
It's a whole new experience for us -- the AD of another school trying to lure away one of our coaches. Especially basketball.


I'm sure Tad will take his cue from Frank the Martian's departure. Frankie is coaching at a school with some bball history, and this school has been known to admit anything with a pulse. He was prolly making decent money. So, why leave for a South Carolina?

Boyle won't be coaching the purple pussies.
 
I suppose we're going to have to put up with this nonsense for a while. But please, Kansas State? Dude went to Kansas, not Kansas State. The very thought is preposterous.
 
Until the national media figures out that A) Colorado is and will be a real basketball school and the B) Tad is serios about liking it in Colorado and is not using CU as a steppingstone we are going to hear Tad's name mentioned for every job that comes open at any school that has had any kind of success in the past decade.

The only thing we can do about it is what Tad is doing about it, ignore it and continue to work towards the success of CU basketball to get it to the point were those other jobs are looked at as a step down and not a place Tad would want to go.
 
Lurking some k-sucks message boards, it sounds like they want Bruce Pearl even though he can't f-ing recruit for 2 more years.

DERP.
 
sackman said:
I suppose we're going to have to put up with this nonsense for a while. But please, Kansas State? Dude went to Kansas, not Kansas State. The very thought is preposterous.
Click to expand...

Really a laughable thought. KState...:rofl:
 
Speculation on KSU boards is that this is all about the AD relationship and that the AD had compiled a bunch of info that this had become a Mangino-like situation in terms of player relationships. Also speculation that Martin was dirty (and :lol: a bunch of them are posting links to the Miami high school stuff and saying that KSU must have just learned about all that).

What's really bad for KSU is that it looks like Martin had 1 foot out the door and he may have had the KSU recruits for this year only sign their financial aid packages but not their LOIs. That would bind KSU to the recruits, but allow the recruits to change their minds and end up playing somewhere else.
 
Buffnik said:
Speculation on KSU boards is that this is all about the AD relationship and that the AD had compiled a bunch of info that this had become a Mangino-like situation in terms of player relationships. Also speculation that Martin was dirty (and :lol: a bunch of them are posting links to the Miami high school stuff and saying that KSU must have just learned about all that).

What's really bad for KSU is that it looks like Martin had 1 foot out the door and he may have had the KSU recruits for this year only sign their financial aid packages but not their LOIs. That would bind KSU to the recruits, but allow the recruits to change their minds and end up playing somewhere else.
Click to expand...


The guy is a shark and not a hip, cool, high-fiving shark like in my sig.
 
Buffnik said:
What's really bad for KSU is that it looks like Martin had 1 foot out the door and he may have had the KSU recruits for this year only sign their financial aid packages but not their LOIs. That would bind KSU to the recruits, but allow the recruits to change their minds and end up playing somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Yup. Their star recruit (name is drawing a blank on me) did exactly that. And when his mom was called for comment yesterday she said "I have no comment". Kid will follow Martin to USC-East.
 
rolandftw said:
According to the world of twitter, Bill Reiter (foxsports.com writer) seems to think Tad Boyle is a frontrunner for the KSU job. Seems unlikely that Boyle would leave for Manhattan, and I hope not as it looks like CU is headed in the right direction under Boyle.
Click to expand...

Bill Reiter (whoever that is) is a ****ing moron.
 
UtterBuffLuv said:
Im just ****in with you man. Welcome to the board, I heard the rumor as well, I don't think we should be too worried about this. Tad already said he isn't going anywhere and not to worry about any rumors we hear.
Click to expand...

I agree, that he is unlikely to leave Colorado for Kansas State. Texas A&M was a superior job to Kansas State imo. It's going to be very difficult to recruit kids to come there, unless you're a gigantic name. He's probably only rumored because the K-State AD and him both were at Tennessee during the same time frame.

With that said, it is annoying that Boyle's name comes up in rumors so much... but the fact that other schools realize the job that Boyle is doing in Colorado, is probably good news for Buff fans. Boyle will eventually leave, of course.. whether for another school or to retire many years from now. Hopefully, in the meantime CU becomes known as a very good place for a coach to be.

It is funny to read K-State boards about it. Obviously still butthurt over Tad owning them over 3 games. They seem to have a very unrealistic view of how desirable K-State is for respective candidates. Especially, with the way Frank is rumored to leaving K-State, it's very difficult to imagine K-State being desirable for any up and coming coach.
 
Frank Martin and the SEC were made for each other.

South Carolina has been doing well in football and baseball and you could add basketball to that list. Similar to Baylor, the C*cks are having a good run within their AD.
 
To recruit KSU, you either need a national name or close ties with the JUCOs in the region. It's the only way to recruit there.

One interesting name I've heard (ESPN) is Wayne Tinkle at Montana. Dude can coach and he has the connects in the JUCO ranks. Young, too. He could be successful at KSU for a long time.
 
Buffnik said:
To recruit KSU, you either need a national name or close ties with the JUCOs in the region. It's the only way to recruit there.

One interesting name I've heard (ESPN) is Wayne Tinkle at Montana. Dude can coach and he has the connects in the JUCO ranks. Young, too. He could be successful at KSU for a long time.
Click to expand...

He's a Montana alumn himself so I'm not sure if he will make that move but KSU's new practice facility would be attractive to any coach. I think KSU might be shooting higher than that although.
 
Something about the South Carolina job I didn't realize is that they've got the old TCU athletic director. Billy Tubbs couldn't stand the guy and made statements that the AD was not supportive of basketball. This makes Martin's decision curiouser and curiouser. Methinks something's rotten in the Little Apple.
 
http://www.kansas.com/2012/03/27/2272916/k-state-officials-look-ahead-at.html

MANHATTAN — If not for someone finding a receipt for a wire transfer at a local grocery store two weeks ago, Kansas State senior forward Jamar Samuels would have been able to play against Syracuse in the NCAA Tournament.
Athletic director John Currie said an unidentified person found the receipt, which K-State sources have said proved Samuels accepted $200 from his former AAU coach, the day before the Wildcats’ third-round game.
By accepting the wire transfer, K-State decided Samuels violated NCAA rules and would be suspended from K-State’s next game. Without Samuels, Syracuse pulled away from K-State in the second half and won 75-59.
“It was found, basically, it was found just on the floor, in the trash at the grocery store and it was brought to the compliance office,” Currie said Tuesday. “I promise you, I wish it would have stayed in the trash.”
Currie said K-State conducted a thorough but quick investigation and he had to make the decision to suspend Samuels. Coach Frank Martin said after the Syracuse game he didn’t think Samuels did anything wrong and that he wasn’t a part of the decision-making process.
Some, including a source close to Martin, have indicated that was the breaking point in an already rocky relationship between the coach and athletic director.

***************

Article went into more detail after that. Martin firmly believes that it's ok for coaches to send money to players they've known. He has admitted that he's personally sent a ton of money over the years to kids he knew from the Miami area to help them out with college expenses.
 
Buffnik said:
http://www.kansas.com/2012/03/27/2272916/k-state-officials-look-ahead-at.html

MANHATTAN — If not for someone finding a receipt for a wire transfer at a local grocery store two weeks ago, Kansas State senior forward Jamar Samuels would have been able to play against Syracuse in the NCAA Tournament.
Athletic director John Currie said an unidentified person found the receipt, which K-State sources have said proved Samuels accepted $200 from his former AAU coach, the day before the Wildcats’ third-round game.
By accepting the wire transfer, K-State decided Samuels violated NCAA rules and would be suspended from K-State’s next game. Without Samuels, Syracuse pulled away from K-State in the second half and won 75-59.
“It was found, basically, it was found just on the floor, in the trash at the grocery store and it was brought to the compliance office,” Currie said Tuesday. “I promise you, I wish it would have stayed in the trash.”
Currie said K-State conducted a thorough but quick investigation and he had to make the decision to suspend Samuels. Coach Frank Martin said after the Syracuse game he didn’t think Samuels did anything wrong and that he wasn’t a part of the decision-making process.
Some, including a source close to Martin, have indicated that was the breaking point in an already rocky relationship between the coach and athletic director.

***************

Article went into more detail after that. Martin firmly believes that it's ok for coaches to send money to players they've known. He has admitted that he's personally sent a ton of money over the years to kids he knew from the Miami area to help them out with college expenses.
Click to expand...

I was just writing the same post. Who believes that a receipt was found on the floor in a grocery store or was it in the trash? This is complete BS, I expect things to get ugly in Manhattan in short order.
 
They know the NCAA can read, right? It's merely a fifth grade level, but they can still comprehend things like "I would've tried to cover this up if it wasn't for that meddling janitor," and a coach saying "I give money to players."
 
Goose said:
Yup. Their star recruit (name is drawing a blank on me) did exactly that. And when his mom was called for comment yesterday she said "I have no comment". Kid will follow Martin to USC-East.
Click to expand...

KSU hoops is imploding... couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people. /sarcasmfont
 
Official Interpretation Benefits Resulting from an Established Relationship (I) Date Published: June 6, 2000 Item Ref: 4 Interpretation: The subcommittee reviewed the application of NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6 as it relates to factual situations in which an individual (student-athlete or prospective student-athlete) has received benefits prior to or during collegiate enrollment from someone other than a family member or legal guardian, and agreed that the following objective guidelines generally should be used in determining whether such benefits are contrary to the legislation: 1. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) develop as a result of the athlete's participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto? 2. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status as a prospective student-athlete? 3. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation? 4. Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete's parents) prior to the athlete attaining notoriety as a skilled athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature? The subcommittee, however, noted that the origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors in determining whether the benefits provided are contrary to the spirit and intent of Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6. The subcommittee determined that prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship (e.g., high-school coach, nonscholastic athletics team coach, family of a teammate), even if the relationship developed as a result of athletics participation, provided: 1. The individual is not an agent, 2. The individual is not an athletics representative of a particular institution involved in recruiting the prospect, and 3. Such living expenses are consistent with the types of expenses provided by the individual as a part of normal living arrangements (e.g., housing, meals, occasional spending money, use of the family car). The subcommittee noted that the above mentioned interpretation does not apply to individuals who have no logical ties to the prospect. It also noted that a current student-athlete who, prior to initial collegiate enrollment, has been receiving normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom he or she has an established relationship may continue to receive occasional benefits (e.g., meals during campus visits, reasonable entertainment) from an individual or family with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship. Such expenses may not include educational expenses associated with a grant-in-aid (i.e., tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books). [References: Bylaws 12.1.1.1.6 (preferential treatment, benefits or services); 15.2.5 (financial aid from outside sources); 16.12.2.4 (preferential treatment)]
 
Buffnik said:
Official Interpretation Benefits Resulting from an Established Relationship (I) Date Published: June 6, 2000 Item Ref: 4 Interpretation: The subcommittee reviewed the application of NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6 as it relates to factual situations in which an individual (student-athlete or prospective student-athlete) has received benefits prior to or during collegiate enrollment from someone other than a family member or legal guardian, and agreed that the following objective guidelines generally should be used in determining whether such benefits are contrary to the legislation: 1. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) develop as a result of the athlete's participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto? 2. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status as a prospective student-athlete? 3. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation? 4. Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete's parents) prior to the athlete attaining notoriety as a skilled athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature? The subcommittee, however, noted that the origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors in determining whether the benefits provided are contrary to the spirit and intent of Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6. The subcommittee determined that prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship (e.g., high-school coach, nonscholastic athletics team coach, family of a teammate), even if the relationship developed as a result of athletics participation, provided: 1. The individual is not an agent, 2. The individual is not an athletics representative of a particular institution involved in recruiting the prospect, and 3. Such living expenses are consistent with the types of expenses provided by the individual as a part of normal living arrangements (e.g., housing, meals, occasional spending money, use of the family car). The subcommittee noted that the above mentioned interpretation does not apply to individuals who have no logical ties to the prospect. It also noted that a current student-athlete who, prior to initial collegiate enrollment, has been receiving normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom he or she has an established relationship may continue to receive occasional benefits (e.g., meals during campus visits, reasonable entertainment) from an individual or family with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship. Such expenses may not include educational expenses associated with a grant-in-aid (i.e., tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books). [References: Bylaws 12.1.1.1.6 (preferential treatment, benefits or services); 15.2.5 (financial aid from outside sources); 16.12.2.4 (preferential treatment)]
Click to expand...

While totally logical and reasonable, I see a giant loophole here. What's to stop a booster from funelling funds through a family friend, or group of family friends, coaches, acquainances, etc?
 
sackman said:
While totally logical and reasonable, I see a giant loophole here. What's to stop a booster from funelling funds through a family friend, or group of family friends, coaches, acquainances, etc?
Click to expand...


Nothing

Cam-Newton-Dad-Check-to-Auburn-Funny-Sign.jpg
 
Buffnik said:
Official Interpretation Benefits Resulting from an Established Relationship (I) Date Published: June 6, 2000 Item Ref: 4 Interpretation: The subcommittee reviewed the application of NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6 as it relates to factual situations in which an individual (student-athlete or prospective student-athlete) has received benefits prior to or during collegiate enrollment from someone other than a family member or legal guardian, and agreed that the following objective guidelines generally should be used in determining whether such benefits are contrary to the legislation: 1. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) develop as a result of the athlete's participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto? 2. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status as a prospective student-athlete? 3. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete's parents) and the individual providing the benefit(s) predate the athlete's status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation? 4. Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete's parents) prior to the athlete attaining notoriety as a skilled athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature? The subcommittee, however, noted that the origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors in determining whether the benefits provided are contrary to the spirit and intent of Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6. The subcommittee determined that prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship (e.g., high-school coach, nonscholastic athletics team coach, family of a teammate), even if the relationship developed as a result of athletics participation, provided: 1. The individual is not an agent, 2. The individual is not an athletics representative of a particular institution involved in recruiting the prospect, and 3. Such living expenses are consistent with the types of expenses provided by the individual as a part of normal living arrangements (e.g., housing, meals, occasional spending money, use of the family car). The subcommittee noted that the above mentioned interpretation does not apply to individuals who have no logical ties to the prospect. It also noted that a current student-athlete who, prior to initial collegiate enrollment, has been receiving normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom he or she has an established relationship may continue to receive occasional benefits (e.g., meals during campus visits, reasonable entertainment) from an individual or family with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship. Such expenses may not include educational expenses associated with a grant-in-aid (i.e., tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books). [References: Bylaws 12.1.1.1.6 (preferential treatment, benefits or services); 15.2.5 (financial aid from outside sources); 16.12.2.4 (preferential treatment)]
Click to expand...

So, wait, why did Samuels get suspended?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top