Very long and probably controversial but it's time to say this.....
An unparalleled number of challenges facing K-State Athletics
There are now four major uncertainties facing K-State athletics (and possibly a fifth) that will dramatically affect the trajectory of the two major programs both over the near term and long term. These are, in no certain order, the leadership of the university itself, the still unclear leadership direction of the football team, the inevitable new leadership of the men's basketball program and the risk of Oklahoma throwing the B12 into realignment chaos. The fifth potential question mark is the uncertain, but plausible departure of the current athletic director at some point over the next six months and then who and what type of leadership will the new AD will provide.
The Brad Underwood miss and the potential implications to the FB program
While we have all speculated about the leadership changes within both the FB and BB programs ad nauseam, I believe the last week (the issue surrounding BU coupled with the implications owing to Schulz leaving for WSU) has changed the calculus surrounding the direction of the long term leadership of the FB program.
I hope I'm wrong, and I understand the other side of the argument, but I fear the downside scenario resulting from a lack of permanent leadership at the university, and perhaps in the AD office at some point soon as well. This lack of permanent leadership at K-State could mean the preferred succession plan of bringing in a highly respected outsider as the next FB coach could fall victim to the other much discussed option of promoting an internal HC candidate.
The reason, in my opinon, is that the one key decision maker committed to bringing in an outsider is also the one who could easily follow his boss in leaving K-State. Moreover, what Tier 1 external HC candidate (in FB or BB) would come to a non-blue blood program with an interim UP and possibly an interim AD? If John was to leave, I don't think you get a permanent AD until you get a permanent UP.
On the the other hand, if John, for some reason, decided to stay at K-State he would likely be operating in the AD role with a diminished level of support from at least a growing portion of the students/alumni base and therefore, would be in somewhat of a more difficult position to affect the needed outcome on succession. Not to mention, the new President, whoever he or she might be, is not likely to give John the same degree of freedom to operate as he had earned in Kirk's eyes. That's only natural in a new relationship.
Hiring Brad, IMO, would have not only strengthened the leverage and the clout John would need in generating a leadership outcome in FB for 2017, it also would have eliminated the long term leadership uncertainty of the BB program. As it stands now, we continue to have lingering questions about both.
So what's needed?
Specifically, the top five to ten donors at K-State need to quickly pull their heads out the sand and get a steaming cup of reality about the real risks facing their university and the two largest athletic programs they have so generously funded over the last number of years.
There was a window of opportunity for this type of donor input or influence this last November when LHCBS was believed to be seriously considering retirement coupled with a strong indication of interest that a certain DC was highly interested in the job, if open and if the job was offered. There was hesitation to push or encourage retirement owing to an upcoming HOF ceremony and a sense, at that time, he was likely to retire anyway.
The key franchise donors missed a second major opportunity to positively change the leadership trajectory within K-State athletics this past week or so when ostensibly none of this important group stepped in to convince John of the merits to both the long term success and the enhanced student/alumni support for the BB program that would have been associated with the hiring of Brad. We cannot afford a third swing and miss!
This passive, no strings attached, laissez fare attitude that has accompanied the key contributions has now backed us into an unwanted corner. To this point, this important group of donors have freely supported both the AD and the two respective head coaches of each major program leaving all the major decisions totally in the hands of the troika to figure out without a formal check and balance call option.
Bold leadership is needed now to prevent another major decision making error.
Look, we all greatly appreciate the sacrifice and the remarkable financial commitment from every single donor and those by The National Leadership Circle, particularly. Nothwithstanding, if our key donors continue to watch from the sidelines (so to speak) the ramifications of missed opportunities will be far greater and deeper than those from the recent past.
We've all heard the increasing rumblings from multiple sources on this board and elsewhere, that there is a significant divisiveness between the legendary FB coach and the AD regarding HC succession plans meaning, there is a real likelihood of a serious strategic error in decision making that could have have long term consequences. What makes this situation particularly high risk is the new leadership vacuum with UP coupled with the plausibility of a lame duck AD or worse, an interim AD that is working with one arm tied behind their back.
While I'm a relatively small fish in a big pond and certainly not a top 10 donor, it seems that at some level, bold leadership should be taken by a handful of the top ten or so donors. This bold leadership could, for example, take the form of an ad hoc external committee to provide proactive input and recommendations on the critical key variables to both the interim President and the AD. Without some sort of more active leadership from these key, important stakeholders the risk corridors appear simply too fragile to withstand the magnitude of critical issues to ensure that more major errors are not made. There is absolutely no way we should be in this position of uncertainty with either of our two major programs and certainly not at the same time.
The take home thought....we all need to wake up!
Whether you agree with my personal preference on the desired outcomes noted above is not really the purpose of my post. What I hope you get out of this long diatribe is a better appreciation of the significant risk we face from "kicking the can down the road" and/or settling for inadequate half measured choices in addressing the critical long term leadership in both the FB and BB programs, and at a time, when we have a major leadership void at the university level to say nothing of the small but real risk of a realignment crisis.
An unparalleled number of challenges facing K-State Athletics
There are now four major uncertainties facing K-State athletics (and possibly a fifth) that will dramatically affect the trajectory of the two major programs both over the near term and long term. These are, in no certain order, the leadership of the university itself, the still unclear leadership direction of the football team, the inevitable new leadership of the men's basketball program and the risk of Oklahoma throwing the B12 into realignment chaos. The fifth potential question mark is the uncertain, but plausible departure of the current athletic director at some point over the next six months and then who and what type of leadership will the new AD will provide.
The Brad Underwood miss and the potential implications to the FB program
While we have all speculated about the leadership changes within both the FB and BB programs ad nauseam, I believe the last week (the issue surrounding BU coupled with the implications owing to Schulz leaving for WSU) has changed the calculus surrounding the direction of the long term leadership of the FB program.
I hope I'm wrong, and I understand the other side of the argument, but I fear the downside scenario resulting from a lack of permanent leadership at the university, and perhaps in the AD office at some point soon as well. This lack of permanent leadership at K-State could mean the preferred succession plan of bringing in a highly respected outsider as the next FB coach could fall victim to the other much discussed option of promoting an internal HC candidate.
The reason, in my opinon, is that the one key decision maker committed to bringing in an outsider is also the one who could easily follow his boss in leaving K-State. Moreover, what Tier 1 external HC candidate (in FB or BB) would come to a non-blue blood program with an interim UP and possibly an interim AD? If John was to leave, I don't think you get a permanent AD until you get a permanent UP.
On the the other hand, if John, for some reason, decided to stay at K-State he would likely be operating in the AD role with a diminished level of support from at least a growing portion of the students/alumni base and therefore, would be in somewhat of a more difficult position to affect the needed outcome on succession. Not to mention, the new President, whoever he or she might be, is not likely to give John the same degree of freedom to operate as he had earned in Kirk's eyes. That's only natural in a new relationship.
Hiring Brad, IMO, would have not only strengthened the leverage and the clout John would need in generating a leadership outcome in FB for 2017, it also would have eliminated the long term leadership uncertainty of the BB program. As it stands now, we continue to have lingering questions about both.
So what's needed?
Specifically, the top five to ten donors at K-State need to quickly pull their heads out the sand and get a steaming cup of reality about the real risks facing their university and the two largest athletic programs they have so generously funded over the last number of years.
There was a window of opportunity for this type of donor input or influence this last November when LHCBS was believed to be seriously considering retirement coupled with a strong indication of interest that a certain DC was highly interested in the job, if open and if the job was offered. There was hesitation to push or encourage retirement owing to an upcoming HOF ceremony and a sense, at that time, he was likely to retire anyway.
The key franchise donors missed a second major opportunity to positively change the leadership trajectory within K-State athletics this past week or so when ostensibly none of this important group stepped in to convince John of the merits to both the long term success and the enhanced student/alumni support for the BB program that would have been associated with the hiring of Brad. We cannot afford a third swing and miss!
This passive, no strings attached, laissez fare attitude that has accompanied the key contributions has now backed us into an unwanted corner. To this point, this important group of donors have freely supported both the AD and the two respective head coaches of each major program leaving all the major decisions totally in the hands of the troika to figure out without a formal check and balance call option.
Bold leadership is needed now to prevent another major decision making error.
Look, we all greatly appreciate the sacrifice and the remarkable financial commitment from every single donor and those by The National Leadership Circle, particularly. Nothwithstanding, if our key donors continue to watch from the sidelines (so to speak) the ramifications of missed opportunities will be far greater and deeper than those from the recent past.
We've all heard the increasing rumblings from multiple sources on this board and elsewhere, that there is a significant divisiveness between the legendary FB coach and the AD regarding HC succession plans meaning, there is a real likelihood of a serious strategic error in decision making that could have have long term consequences. What makes this situation particularly high risk is the new leadership vacuum with UP coupled with the plausibility of a lame duck AD or worse, an interim AD that is working with one arm tied behind their back.
While I'm a relatively small fish in a big pond and certainly not a top 10 donor, it seems that at some level, bold leadership should be taken by a handful of the top ten or so donors. This bold leadership could, for example, take the form of an ad hoc external committee to provide proactive input and recommendations on the critical key variables to both the interim President and the AD. Without some sort of more active leadership from these key, important stakeholders the risk corridors appear simply too fragile to withstand the magnitude of critical issues to ensure that more major errors are not made. There is absolutely no way we should be in this position of uncertainty with either of our two major programs and certainly not at the same time.
The take home thought....we all need to wake up!
Whether you agree with my personal preference on the desired outcomes noted above is not really the purpose of my post. What I hope you get out of this long diatribe is a better appreciation of the significant risk we face from "kicking the can down the road" and/or settling for inadequate half measured choices in addressing the critical long term leadership in both the FB and BB programs, and at a time, when we have a major leadership void at the university level to say nothing of the small but real risk of a realignment crisis.
Last edited:
