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

for the athletic programs?

<a href='http://www.recordpub.com/article.php?pathToFile=/articles/news/&file=_news1.txt&article=1&tD=' target='_blank'>http://www.recordpub.com/article.php?pathT...t&article=1&tD=</a>

All in all, KSU could not have had a better president over the last 14 years. No, she wasn't perfect and made some unpopular decisions. Yet, IMO, Kent State has progressed in all the important way under under leadership, academically, as a presence in NE Ohio, and as a research instiution. No real surprise that she'll retire, and her success paves the way for a much higher profile President.

I wonder what this means for Laing?

The impact on the athletic programs will depend on how the new President will view them. If he/she views them as both a student life/ enrichment tool AND a marketing tool for the university, you may see a renewed sense of importance in the high profile sports like football and basketball.
Otherwise, business as usual or a decline in importance. Who knows?

The bigger question is how does the board view athletics and what will they look for in a candidate?

FlashFan, you seem to know a little about these folks. Any thoughts about the board"s view?

While I would not characterize it as a "renewed" sense of importance, because a sense of importance exists...I do think it means a greater sense of urgency for the football program. After all, we could quibble, but there are not many other athletic prorams that need major attention.

Regardless of what the BOT thinks, these are the facts the new President will be facing:

1. launch of the largest capital campaign in KSU history
2. capitalizing on momentum of the Centennial celebration
3. ongoing focus on strudent recruitment and retention, with increasing empahsis on out of state students due to the decline in Ohio's population or ability to attend college

The common thread to all of this is outreach. As you've said, quality athletics is a viable marketing and outreach strategy. While we might not like to admit it, it is the front porch of the University to the community and public at large. Frequently, new Presidents make their boldest statements in changes in the athletics department. Brother Jenkins fired a popular coach as his first act at ND, mostly because he was about to embark on a one BILLION dollar development campaign and alumni were restless. Nancy Zimpher reached around the AD to fire Huggins due to her impresion of his affect on UC's image. The President of OU (forget his name ) propped up athletics first as a
venue to enhance OU's appeal. Add to all of that our new President will be faced with the old 15K problem next year. No one will want their first act to be a downgrade in athletic competition.

My take is that most of the athletics programs are fine. Football? Well, starting next season there's a new boss with FB on the top of the fix it list, whether he or she would chose to start there or not. So, I'd say the bottom line to the football program is: dance in the locker room, tuck The Winner Within under pillows, group hug in the huddle, whatever it takes...it's in your best interest to turn this around before it gets turned around for you.

Good insight Flash Fan. When I meant sense of importance, I was referring to the lost opportunity after the Elite 8 in 2002. The profile of KSU was only higher once before and that was for the wrong reason. NE Ohio was looking at us and I think that we missed the opportunity to maintain that profile and own our backyard. Thus, the only improvement that I could see for basketball is a TV package and better radio package to increase exposure throughout NE Ohio. The same 6K will show up at the MACC. However, greater interest can be generated through TV and/or improved radio.

A new arena would be nice, but unlikely.

Football, where do we begin...

The Flash,
You really hit a sore spot with me. We were THE mid major program for a few years. We lost it. The alumni base was motivated like never before. We basically did nothing with it. What a shame! Some are afraid of success. Success raises expectations. Expectations raises pressure. Some thrive on pressure, some avoid it at all cost. Which are we?

The bottom line is good news for Kent State. C2 leaves things in fundamentally good shape with two labor contracts, an established higher bar on admissions and academics and a solid research foundation. A well though out long term plan is in place. It's a fairly attractive situation because there's some, but little, clean up. The work is future focused.

The three challenges for her successor will be continued attraction and retention of quality students, raising money and improving the community relationship. As these are primarily externally oriented, my hunch is that we go for a background with a high profile public university. Typically, these sorts of instiutions have athletics front and center. Guess we'll just have to see what happens.

Flash Fan,

Agreed. This is a much more attractive job than when CC took over in the early 1990s. Michael Schwartz started the ball rolling and CC built from there.

GFlash,

I was thinking of you when I wrote about the missed opportunity in 2002. Let's hope we get back there soon!!!!

I just wanted to throw in here that I think that Carol Cartwright has done a remarkable job as president. The overall look of the campus has been dramatically improved. When she came, Moulton Hall was closed and Front Campus looked like a trainwreck. Now, it is open and looks wonderful. The development of a science center on campus with the new math building (ok, not the prettiest thing) and the Liquid Crystal Institute is very nice. New dorms, new rec building, all very impressive.

Academically, I think Kent has gone from just another Ohio public university (in the same ilk as YSU, CSU and Akron) to the best among those four (those I do think that Akron has also made good strides as well), and probably should be considered the third best university in the state (behind Miami, an excellent undergraduate institution and OSU, a very good research university).

I hope they find someone that can continue to build on her success.

Quote:I just wanted to throw in here that I think that Carol Cartwright has done a remarkable job as president. The overall look of the campus has been dramatically improved. When she came, Moulton Hall was closed and Front Campus looked like a trainwreck. Now, it is open and looks wonderful. The development of a science center on campus with the new math building (ok, not the prettiest thing) and the Liquid Crystal Institute is very nice. New dorms, new rec building, all very impressive.

Academically, I think Kent has gone from just another Ohio public university (in the same ilk as YSU, CSU and Akron) to the best among those four (those I do think that Akron has also made good strides as well), and probably should be considered the third best university in the state (behind Miami, an excellent undergraduate institution and OSU, a very good research university).

I hope they find someone that can continue to build on her success.

Well stated, bopal. I very much agree. As CC has agreed to stay until a replacement can be found, we should have a nice window for a search.

As a proud male chauvinist pig, I had some reservations after Cartwright was hired. Other than dismantling the hockey program, I think she's done a very good job.

You had to bring up hockey didn't you. :mad: Okay now calm down, If Laing is here, does that happen? We will never know...

Speaking of Laing, here's guessing that he sticks around to transition to the new president and retires shortly afterward. Maybe he doesn't want a new boss at his age... Then the door is open for a young agressive AD to take the exposure angle to the next level and tackle 15K anew. Can't argue with Laing's results in sports other than football and from the fundraising front. Not sure who could revive this program. Laing seemed to try. Hard to market 3-8, 5-6, etc. year after year.

My gut says you are right, Flash. I think we have Laing through the first full year of the new President, which will in all liklihood will be the 2006-07 academic year. The shame is, the NCAA selection seat goes with him, not KSU. Sure would like to get more than two yeras out of that five year deal.

I don't think Laing would have taken the five year deal on the NCAA committee if he didn't intend to serve the entire term. He knows his seat isn't just representing KSU it is the entire MAC conference. To leave before the term is up would let down his fellow conference ADs who are counting on him. Laing is nothing if not loyal, almost to a fault (see Pees contract extension). If the new administration is supportive towards the Athletic Dept my guess is Laing will stay on for a while.

I was at the pre game gathering in Annapolis on Saturday, and Carol and laing said some great things, and are both boasting about the school and it's athletics programs. Just my guess, but I don't think that Laing is going anywhere yet. He still seems to be very involved and excited about the day to day operations of the athletic dept. He also is very supportive of Martin and his staff. But, I guess that could change by the end of the season...

Quote:I don't think Laing would have taken the five year deal on the NCAA committee if he didn't intend to serve the entire term. He knows his seat isn't just representing KSU it is the entire MAC conference. To leave before the term is up would let down his fellow conference ADs who are counting on him. Laing is nothing if not loyal, almost to a fault (see Pees contract extension). If the new administration is supportive towards the Athletic Dept my guess is Laing will stay on for a while.

Net, it's a good thing for Laing to stay for the full five years of the NCAA seat. Practically speaking, the new President is going to take a year to figure out how he or she wants to reconfigure the team,which brings us to 2007 at the earliest that I'd expect a change. The selection seat is a good reason to stick around for another three years.

I doubt he'll have as good a relationship with any boss as Laing does with CC, though, so it could be interesting. A different scenario? Laing stays the course of the selection seat term but gets some "help" from someone appointed by the new President, an apprentice who is ready to step up when Laing retires. Laing might not want the long days anymore and may appreciate the assistance. This is only my wild idea.

I really don't want to start this whole topic again, but since I opened Pandora's Box, it is my opinion than on balance (meaning there are gives and takes) Laing has been a great AD. Even with my frustration with the football program, I'd rather have someone with his values in the right place vs. a win at all costs mentallity in that chair. Laing's not perfect, he could do better at outreach, but like CC, net he'll leave the KSU athletics department in much better shape than when he started.

Laings plight will be determined by how knowledgeable he or she is about football. It you look at Laings decision concerning this sport for his entire stay, you will see that it is hard to find one, I mean ONE, good dicision that would improve our program. I will submit that at a school like Kent, you do not get second chances to make a good first impression. And, a young coach that knows what he is doing can improve a team immediately. I year one you must show improvement over the inherented program because it is the only way to show recruits that the program is looking up. When you take the Pees approach and redshirt the entire first and second year, you are saying that I have a 5 year program. (Usually phrased as "I am building the program the RIGHT way") This will not work. As you do worst in your first and second year, recruits know that it is more of the same.

When Martin comes in and takes a team with reasonble talent (due to the previous redshirting), and takes argueably the best runing QB in college FB, and does not allow him run an option, you know that you have a lost program and coach. He tries to make Cribbs drop back passer in a snow and ice climate. This is lame and I Know that many of you will not agree with me. If you can not recruit stoppers on the defensive line, you can only win by slanting the time of possession in your favor. That is why Navy plays its style. Kent actually had bigger, and faster players than Navy. This was a coaches loss. The time of possession imbalance screams that the wrong system is being used. Don James went 3-8 his first year, but everyone at the games saw discipline and a team being beaten because of youth and lack of talent. Note: Second year MAC champs.

I know that most of you will call me a "know it all" I still contend that a knowledgeable AD can make a good decision the first year out. If I were committed to Martin, as Laing probably is, It is at least his job to tell his coach what most FB fans and students of the game already know.

Let me share with you a bona fide statistic. A team with a 100 average yard rusher per game wins 68 percent of its games. (National Stats)
A team that that has a 300 yard passer average per game, wins 47 percent of its games. The problem with KSU, is not something that the right AD can not fix. Laing might be the right AD. I would like to see some Mike Lude type decisions, (for FB only)

For the most part GFlash68, I agree with what you are saying. However, in Pees defense I don’t believe even Nick Saban could have made Kent a winner in his second year at the time Pees was hired. At that time the football team was so pathetic that any coach would have needed more than two years to make the program competitive. Have you forgotten how bad the team was after Mason? If it were not for the injuries incurred this year, the team would be much better than what it has shown so far. When Kent begins to develop more depth, then you will see a better winning percentage and a more consistent performance from the team.

Again NGF,
I am not looking for an early winning season. I am looking for getting the most from what is at hand. Hot dogging penalties is a reflection of coaching. This will not happen on a bad team that needs every break that it can get. The team after Mason was not that bad. It had bad coaching period. Our team has no discipline in any phase of the game. This is not rocket science. All teams have injuries. And, many of our problems are correctible. It takes a strong task master.

They did try to revolve the whole offense around Josh's running in 2002. He blew out his hamstring and endured many other bumps and bruises along the way. Without Josh, the team lost games 50-0, 63-21, 48-10 to OU, UConn and Akron. :crying: The last two years the offense was some of the most profilic in Kent State history. In 2003, Pees screwed up. He will tell you that right now if you could ask him. He overextended himself between trying to be defensive coordinator and Coach Drake's illness. That team scored at least 30 points in every game for the last two months. Last year, the offense sputtered at times early in the season but not the reason the team started 1-6. Martin has made some mistakes but critiquing the offense the past two years I don't see how you can do it. I think you are grasping for more negatives to throw on him.

Those percentages and stats are just that. BG and Toledo run the ball more than KSU, but they didn't get there going to double tight and I backfield. Here is another stat for you. KSU has been within one score in the 4th quarter of 11 of its last 14 losses. Those three losses were at MSU, Iowa and Miami, a game KSU led at halftime. This is not 2002 and certainly not the 1990s.

We have had this argument before. We know where we each stand, but firing the coach won't happen.

Quote:I am looking for getting the most from what is at hand

I'll argue that a "get the most of what we have" and not a "build what we want" attitude is a big part of our historic problem. A college football team turns over every 3-4 years. Build an option around Josh Cribbs? This means training 30+ offensive guys to run a program good for three or four years, or trying an even more remote task of trying to recruit another Josh Cribbs. Further, KStud makes a good point. What if the handful of guys the program is "built around" get hurt?

You all know I've had my problems with this program. But in all honesty, I saw a much better offensive product on Saturday. The Flashes scored everytime they were in the red zone, were able to rip off some nice runs (not enough, but a start) and even had two rushing touchdowns, including ten yards. I've not seen them punch it in before, they did Saturday. Plus, gotta tell you, the Flashes offense was far more fun for fans to watch than the wishbone. Maybe it works, but :snore:

Net, whatever you think about Doug Martin, he's got a vision for what he wants and he is trying to recruit the kind of players to get it. I liked the glimpse of what the offense could be last week. Much rather have a coach declare what he wants and build it than reshape it every few years based on the cream that rises to the top.

Plus, it will be a heck of alot easier for Martin to recruit for a spread offense than for an option. Jon Brown is a case in point. A true freshman can step into a game at QB and make a run because
"this is the game he played in high school."

FWIW, GF, laying the conduct calls on Martin is a bit much. If you were there, the first one on Pruden was a stretch, but no big deal. The second was on a true freshman learning the game. Every team in the country has a player make a stupid decision on a play or a hit. So, if it's always the coaches fault, you've just made a long list. Charlie Weis is notorious for discipline and even some of the young Irish have had a few misjudgements.