The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I'd be more impressed with our transfers from UTEP and Providence if they had actually accomplished something at those schools. Our two best transfers from four year schools in recent years were Warzynski and Quaintance, who came from LOW MAJOR schools but were starters who had shown that they could play at a higher level and were moving UP, not down.

I don't really have a problem with using both avenues for players. Because we are seeing a team that is not playing especially well together, we look for answers as to why and one of the first things that is easy to identify is the philosophy on how the team is built. But I don't think that is the primary reason.

This is more a combination of pieces that really don't fit that well together and a coach that, regardless of talent, just doesn't have the experience to make it work...yet.

This reminds me of throughbreds. If you buy a yearling, the upside is tremendous, but they don't race until they are at least two, if you are lucky. There is a lot of training before they get on the track and even then, you really don't know what you have until they actually race. However, three-year olds are prime race age and you have a good idea what you have. And to take the analogy further, most of those three-year olds you get in claiming races where a trainer thinks they can get more from the horse or they believe a change of scenery will help.

Dave,
May I disagree and agree. The 4 year thing is a ruse. With LKs record of staying with a coach, even with a poor record, (Pees and current) and since Ford is his hand picked choice, even if LK retires in 3 years, he can extend the contract each year for the year just passed. That gives Geno 7 years. If he needs more, then there is a problem. I still question the way Geno has in effect run off Dimaria, and is obviously doing the same with AG. Most mid major types become serviceable in varying degrees when on a 5 year program. Some even become stars when it is not apparent that they will in year 1 or 2. This is the challenge of a hard working coaching staff. In DiMaria's case, either the coaching staff did not want to invest in the time and effort to make a BB player out of arguably the best athlete on the team, for maybe only year 4 and 5 rewards, or Dimaria had mental limitations to work with. His problem was not physical and for one thing, he was quick. Whatever the case, it would not be that difficult to let a ®freshman off the end of the bench for a few minutes for development of his game legs and to develop an attachment to the team. I do not know the case here so this is only an example. Chemistry is what we have been lacking, and it must be developed by the coach from his seat on the bench to the seat on the opposite end.

As for the agreement, I really like the players coming in and projected to come in. A transfer with 3 years works for me. Holt will start by his 5th game. Holt, Evans, and Sherman will be a big time back court. Johnson, Greene, Avila, and Parks, offers options. This team is beginning to look more like what we really want.

David, you have a point as to it being more difficult for mid-majors to recruit true freshmen than it used to be. At least, that has certainly been true for the MAC. Here is the roster for Kent's deepest team. Note that every player came to Kent State as a freshman, except John Calloway and maybe Ryan Lehrke, the walk-on. Mike Perry, who also came to Kent State as a freshman was on the team, too, but he was in a medical red-shirt year.

Playing Time and Points
Name Games Minutes Points
TEAM PLAY START MIN MPG PTS PPG HIGH
Loading data...
Ed Norvell 30 30 30 883 29.4 204 6.8 15
John Whorton 30 29 29 780 26.9 370 12.8 23
Andrew Mitchell 30 30 30 778 25.9 261 8.7 17
Kyrem Massey 30 30 29 736 24.5 329 11 23
Trevor Huffman 30 30 0 573 19.1 268 8.9 23
John Callaway 30 30 28 564 18.8 129 4.3 12
Nate Meers 30 28 2 525 18.8 227 8.1 21
Eric Thomas 30 29 0 410 14.1 100 3.4 11
Geoffrey Vaughn 30 24 0 262 10.9 112 4.7 16
Rashaun Warren 30 25 1 250 10 102 4.1 16
Al Moore 30 25 1 197 7.9 30 1.2 8
Ryan Lehrke 30 21 0 67 3.2 24 1.1 8

I agree with GF68 that the 4 year issue is a ruse. First point: How does one explain that not so successful elite conference coaches have no problems landing 4 year players, even with deep pocketed alums to buy them out? Look at Bill Carmody at Northwestern. With two years to go on his contract and only 2 B10 wins all of last year, he lands his best recruiting class ever. Second: Mid major coaches are more likely to leave due to success rather than anything else. Anyone think there is a single MAC coach who won't get picked off after winning an NCAA game or two? Frankly, many of the major conference coaches catch the "move up" bug, too, so the uncertainty for a preps kid is everywhere.

If we're buying into JUCOs, let's just say it's our strategy rather than a rationalization that doesn't seem to hold true for other good reasons. Does anyone think there is a preps kid in the country signing with a program because he's certain the HC will be around 4-5 years?

I like the incoming class, too. My biggest concern is for Williams, just because I'm skeptical he's going to settle down after his coast to coast adventure. Also, we've been led to believe Johnson will be at a JUCO next year, so don't issue his number just yet.

(02-02-2009 07:17 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Dave,
May I disagree and agree. The 4 year thing is a ruse. With LKs record of staying with a coach, even with a poor record, (Pees and current) and since Ford is his hand picked choice, even if LK retires in 3 years, he can extend the contract each year for the year just passed. That gives Geno 7 years. If he needs more, then there is a problem. I still question the way Geno has in effect run off Dimaria, and is obviously doing the same with AG. Most mid major types become serviceable in varying degrees when on a 5 year program. Some even become stars when it is not apparent that they will in year 1 or 2. This is the challenge of a hard working coaching staff. In DiMaria's case, either the coaching staff did not want to invest in the time and effort to make a BB player out of arguably the best athlete on the team, for maybe only year 4 and 5 rewards, or Dimaria had mental limitations to work with. His problem was not physical and for one thing, he was quick. Whatever the case, it would not be that difficult to let a ®freshman off the end of the bench for a few minutes for development of his game legs and to develop an attachment to the team. I do not know the case here so this is only an example. Chemistry is what we have been lacking, and it must be developed by the coach from his seat on the bench to the seat on the opposite end.

As for the agreement, I really like the players coming in and projected to come in. A transfer with 3 years works for me. Holt will start by his 5th game. Holt, Evans, and Sherman will be a big time back court. Johnson, Greene, Avila, and Parks, offers options. This team is beginning to look more like what we really want.

(02-02-2009 07:17 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Dave,
May I disagree and agree. The 4 year thing is a ruse. With LKs record of staying with a coach, even with a poor record, (Pees and current) and since Ford is his hand picked choice, even if LK retires in 3 years, he can extend the contract each year for the year just passed. That gives Geno 7 years. If he needs more, then there is a problem. I still question the way Geno has in effect run off Dimaria, and is obviously doing the same with AG. Most mid major types become serviceable in varying degrees when on a 5 year program. Some even become stars when it is not apparent that they will in year 1 or 2. This is the challenge of a hard working coaching staff. In DiMaria's case, either the coaching staff did not want to invest in the time and effort to make a BB player out of arguably the best athlete on the team, for maybe only year 4 and 5 rewards, or Dimaria had mental limitations to work with. His problem was not physical and for one thing, he was quick. Whatever the case, it would not be that difficult to let a ®freshman off the end of the bench for a few minutes for development of his game legs and to develop an attachment to the team. I do not know the case here so this is only an example. Chemistry is what we have been lacking, and it must be developed by the coach from his seat on the bench to the seat on the opposite end.

As for the agreement, I really like the players coming in and projected to come in. A transfer with 3 years works for me. Holt will start by his 5th game. Holt, Evans, and Sherman will be a big time back court. Johnson, Greene, Avila, and Parks, offers options. This team is beginning to look more like what we really want.

Trust me. The 4-year contract issue is absolutely not a ruse ... I'd be shocked if Laing Kennedy is here in three years. I'd even be very surprised if he is here in 2 years. And somewhat surprised if he's here all of next year.
Also, Ford didn't run off DiMaria. DiMaria wanted to play, so he left to go somewhere he could play (and for a coach who is a close family friend) . He wasn't going to play here.

DiMaria was most definitely not the best athlete on the team. He had very serious limitations with lateral movement and was last on the team in ball-handling skills. The pluses with DiMaria were that he is a really nice kid, he could jump, and he had a nice shot ... but his ball-handling skills made it hard for him to get shots. Tyree Evans has similar ball-handling issues, but he moves better without the ball and can move laterally to be effective defensively. The issue that kept DiMaria off the court more than any though was that after two years, he still didn't have a grasp of the plays.
Grimsley has similar issues. He isn't learning his responsibilities. It's hard to play him when he doesn't know what he is supposed to do. They can't afford to put him in until he grasps what they are doing. And you can't reward a kid with playing time when he watches seven or eight people run a drill, then gets his turn and doesn't get it right ... over and over again.
It's too bad, because Grimsley is a high-energy kid and he could be a help. But if he's lost on defense and lost when they run a play on offfense, what do you do?
With the energy, you'd love him to be a "glue" guy, but he can't do that if he doesn't know what's going on.

Bill Carmody is a completely different situation.
He's been at Northwestern for a decade working at a school that has no real aspirations to be anything beyond what they are. If he manages to secure his second ever winning season at the school this year, they'll be thrilled with him.

Geno Ford is in his first year at a school where expectations are always high ... where the athletic director who hired him will be ready to retire in the not-too-distant future.

If he goes .500 this year, and is .500 next year at mid-season and that's when Laing Kennedy decides to step down and help his replacement be ready to come into the next school year at full steam, what do you think the likelihood is of Ford being back ... not very high at all.

I'm not saying the four-year deal makes it impossible to get good high-school recruits at this level. I'm saying it's hard to hit with high-school recruits at this level, period. You are doing well to hit 50-percent of the time
The worry for a coach with three years left on his contract is that he's not going to get extended. If he doesn't, he may feel that he MUST win now, and that means not being able to afford the time to recruit, hit and miss, and then develop the hits of high-school kids.

You have to roll the dice in that case with the guys who are more likely to be ready to play sooner ... the guys who would have been big-time recruits that KSU never would have had a chance to get the first time around.
Cass wouldn't have considered KSU out of high school. Neither would Williams, Evans, Edwin, Antonio Gates.

Remember, Ford was a coach at Ohio University when there was a change at AD and the Bobcats dumped a very successful head coach in Larry Hunter. Ford lost his job ... you don't think that's in the back of Ford's mind?

As for Johnson, it's probably going to be very close with his grades. If he ends up going to junior college, you wait for him. He's really good.

By the way, I'd argue that Ford's staff has done a pretty good job in recruiting.
Simpson was a good get.
I think Greene is a very good get.
I think Evans is a very good get.

I like what I've seen of every recruit for next year ... and they've already locked up one of the best high-school juniors in the state for two-years off.

I'm just saying, they feel right now that they have to try to hit with junior-college players to have a winning season when the next AD comes in. It's a real fear. I understand it. I don't think they want to go as heavy with junior-college, but they feel it is a necessity for right now.

You don't have to agree with it ... but you should try to understand the fears of a coach who's been through this before and lost his job before.

I forgot about the junior in Cincinnati. He is a good recruit, if he sticks with his verbal. I also like Holt as a recruit.

Speaking of Northwestern, I find it odd that, historically, they have been better in football in the Big Ten than in basketball. I would think that it would be easier, relatively speaking, to build a basketball proram than a football program. Of course, the same is true of Penn State. But Penn State is in the middle of nowhere, and Northwestern is right outside Chicago.

one more bit of info with regards to coaches leaving because they move up:

Bob Donewald, wins the MAC championship 1998, beats Clemson in first round of tournament ... New AD hired in 1999 when he was 13-13 ... Fired.

Dan Hipsher, wins league at Akron, two years later, new AD comes in ... Fired.

Larry Hunter ... wins championship, fired four years later with 18-19-20 wins in the remaining years before the exempt tournament era when you got more games. New AD ... Fired.

Stan Joplin ... second winningest program in league behind KSU in the last decade. New AD ... fired.

Jay Smith ... two conference championships, first round NCAA win, within 3 years. He struggles, new AD ... fired

Meanwhile, Northwestern has never been to an NCAA tournament in school history. It's an academic school that just happens to play sports. Northwestern not changing AD's. No pressure. He's been there for 10 years without winning. Why would any recruits think he was going anywhere?

In the MAC, three coaches hired this year, too, and when KSU is supposed to be the premier program, Toledo hires a guy for $300,000 for five years, Ohio hires Groce for five years and just under $300,000 in total package ... KSU hires its new guy for 4 years at $200,000. Not the same commitment.

I know of one coach who told a recruit "I make more money than Kent's entire staff put together, and I'm going to be here when you graduate ... where do you want to go?"

Now, that's not my argument, but it does add to the argument.

There's reason to believe Ford will be around if he doesn't win soon.

Meanwhile, Ford's staff still signed the No. 2 high school point guard in state of Ohio in Holt and the No. 1 wing with Scooter Johnson, and the commitment they got from Kenny Knight, he's the No. 2 power forward ... No. 1 power forward was Sullinger's brother, who is No. 1 power forward in country. In Holt, the No. 1 point guard went to the Atlantic 10. KSU isn't going to compete with that.

Pretty good, really.

Jim Christian hit with some 4-year players (Scott, Haynes) and missed with some (Brown, Crenshaw, Johnson). He hit with some JUCOs/transfers (too many to list) and missed with some (Woods, Spates, who never got there,). While I know this has been debated before, I think the argument would have less vigor if this year's team was 15-5. Do you throw out a formula that has kept this program at a high level for several years because of one mediocre year? This team is talented enough to still win 16 or 17 games so we can't even call this one awful yet.

The thing that has turned into a positive is the transfers beyond the APR situation. If four-year players know they don't want to be at a school within their first year or two it is advantageous to both parties if they move. If Crenshaw does not leave, would KSU have had the same success with him instead of Smith and Fisher, for example.

Two things make a good basketball team: one, getting good players and two, moldinig them into a good team. Kent's teams have always been more than the sum of the parts during the ten-year run. The quality of the recruits seems fine; it's the latter part that is still TBD under Ford's watch.

(02-02-2009 09:49 PM)KStud Wrote:  Jim Christian hit with some 4-year players (Scott, Haynes) and missed with some (Brown, Crenshaw, Johnson). He hit with some JUCOs/transfers (too many to list) and missed with some (Woods, Spates, who never got there,). While I know this has been debated before, I think the argument would have less vigor if this year's team was 15-5. Do you throw out a formula that has kept this program at a high level for several years because of one mediocre year? This team is talented enough to still win 16 or 17 games so we can't even call this one awful yet.

The thing that has turned into a positive is the transfers beyond the APR situation. If four-year players know they don't want to be at a school within their first year or two it is advantageous to both parties if they move. If Crenshaw does not leave, would KSU have had the same success with him instead of Smith and Fisher, for example.

Very well said...

Also, remember, Kent State could have been a 20-win team very easily this year... Don't schedule Kansas, Illinois, Texas A&M, Temple on the road, etc ... buy a few wins (which KSU won't do, while other MAC schools do) ... It's not an easy situation.

I think Kent State has a good chance of going into the MAC tournament at about 16-15. Bad by the standards of the previous ten years, but not bad by the school's historical standard. If it is just an "off year", not bad for an "off year".

(02-02-2009 09:59 PM)Kent 76 Wrote:  I think Kent State has a good chance of going into the MAC tournament at about 16-15. Bad by the standards of the previous ten years, but not bad by the school's historical standard. If it is just an "off year", not bad for an "off year".

In 10 years covering recruiting, I've never had one kid tell me he didn't attend a school because the thought the coach wouldn't be there when he graduated.

In fact, if I had a nickel for every time a kid told me he understands it's a business and coaches leave for other jobs and get fired, I'd be a millionaire.

The problem at Kent State has been coaches recruiting to win with little to no thought on the future because they assumed a 20-win season would get them a better job.

That's why the walls came crashing down after last season.

I was told in Kansas that this year's team was going to be better than last year's squad and that was before the recruitment of Justin Green, Henry-Ala, Grimsley, Simpson and the addition of Tyree Evans.

I knew it wouldn't be. There was no way...you don't replace Q and Mike Scott with first-year players and assume the team will take a step up.

I still hold the believe that the best course of action for Geno Ford would have been to totally rebuild in year one. I don't think anybody would have been upset had he brought in a full class of high school prospects, even with a sub .500 year as long as the team made progress and built for the future.

Now, there's been so much turnover KSU has to print new programs before every game. How does that build a T-E-A-M?

So next year we gamble with another school's castoff...and if that doesn't work out?

But, let's not use a coach's contract as an excuse for failing to recruit.

(02-02-2009 10:13 PM)ohiovarsity Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 09:59 PM)Kent 76 Wrote:  I think Kent State has a good chance of going into the MAC tournament at about 16-15. Bad by the standards of the previous ten years, but not bad by the school's historical standard. If it is just an "off year", not bad for an "off year".

In 10 years covering recruiting, I've never had one kid tell me he didn't attend a school because the thought the coach wouldn't be there when he graduated.

In fact, if I had a nickel for every time a kid told me he understands it's a business and coaches leave for other jobs and get fired, I'd be a millionaire.

The problem at Kent State has been coaches recruiting to win with little to no thought on the future because they assumed a 20-win season would get them a better job.

That's why the walls came crashing down after last season.

I was told in Kansas that this year's team was going to be better than last year's squad and that was before the recruitment of Justin Green, Henry-Ala, Grimsley, Simpson and the addition of Tyree Evans.

I knew it wouldn't be. There was no way...you don't replace Q and Mike Scott with first-year players and assume the team will take a step up.

I still hold the believe that the best course of action for Geno Ford would have been to totally rebuild in year one. I don't think anybody would have been upset had he brought in a full class of high school prospects, even with a sub .500 year as long as the team made progress and built for the future.

Now, there's been so much turnover KSU has to print new programs before every game. How does that build a T-E-A-M?

So next year we gamble with another school's castoff...and if that doesn't work out?

But, let's not use a coach's contract as an excuse for failing to recruit.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

I didn't say it is an excuse in terms of recruiting

It is an excuse as to why you go with the quick fix attempt.

If you think you are gone soon, what do you do? Would you develop high school kids for the next coach?

I'm not saying it's even right or wrong ... I'm saying I understand it.

And while it's not my primary argument, it is true that the contract situation is used against KSU's staff in recruiting.

And ... I actually thought this would be a very, very good team at one point. I was wrong.
As much as people on the inside told me I was wrong.

One other thing,

I never said that this staff has failed to recruit, so I never would have used the contract situation as a reason for failed recruiting.

I think the recruiting has been very good.

good posts by all. I am really enjoying this thread.

I think we all know that having a balaced mix of both 4 yr players and transfers is good and works. this year the balance may be a bit out of wack but i believe it will get sorted out.

I cant wait to see what we get out of greene in the next few years. He has a knack for scoring in the post and once he gets stronger he'll be a force on the boards. Also, if grimsley can get his head out of the clouds i like his energy and strength. Holt looks like he will be a very nice addition next year.

(02-02-2009 10:13 PM)ohiovarsity Wrote:  

(02-02-2009 09:59 PM)Kent 76 Wrote:  I think Kent State has a good chance of going into the MAC tournament at about 16-15. Bad by the standards of the previous ten years, but not bad by the school's historical standard. If it is just an "off year", not bad for an "off year".

In 10 years covering recruiting, I've never had one kid tell me he didn't attend a school because the thought the coach wouldn't be there when he graduated.

In fact, if I had a nickel for every time a kid told me he understands it's a business and coaches leave for other jobs and get fired, I'd be a millionaire.

The problem at Kent State has been coaches recruiting to win with little to no thought on the future because they assumed a 20-win season would get them a better job.

That's why the walls came crashing down after last season.

I was told in Kansas that this year's team was going to be better than last year's squad and that was before the recruitment of Justin Green, Henry-Ala, Grimsley, Simpson and the addition of Tyree Evans.

I knew it wouldn't be. There was no way...you don't replace Q and Mike Scott with first-year players and assume the team will take a step up.

I still hold the believe that the best course of action for Geno Ford would have been to totally rebuild in year one. I don't think anybody would have been upset had he brought in a full class of high school prospects, even with a sub .500 year as long as the team made progress and built for the future.

Now, there's been so much turnover KSU has to print new programs before every game. How does that build a T-E-A-M?

So next year we gamble with another school's castoff...and if that doesn't work out?

But, let's not use a coach's contract as an excuse for failing to recruit.

Let's see. Kent is 10-11 and still might be the third best team in the MAC behind Miami and Buffalo, so obviously this isn't working? Sure, the breaks haven't gone their way this year, but they are just 1-6 in close games and still have the talent to make a nice run. I'm sorry, but if your Northern Illinois or Eastern Michigan, you might as well start over, but Kent isn't at that point yet.

I'll never be convinced that the quick fix is every the right way to go.

For instance, how different would last year's team have looked if it was Korey Spates running the show instead of Al Fisher.

That wasn't good recruiting...that was dumb luck.