Is Kramer Staying a Good Thing?

Catfan2030 · Post by **Catfan2030** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:29 am

i think that if he had left our program may have been in shambles. Him staying can possibly keep our team unity together. This is a great thing for us.

Belgrade Big Dog · Post by **Belgrade Big Dog** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:16 pm

One obstacle that our coaches may face, when recruiting a young athlete, is how do you gain access to any criminal history. Courts usually seal the files of minors. Counselors and principles may be reluctant to divulge much information for fear of a lawsuit also.

Botcat1234 · Post by **Botcat1234** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:41 pm

As a father, I wouldnt feel comfortable sending my son to play at MSU at this time.
I think if Kramer would have left or is forced to leave that would send the most powerful message to everyone in the country that MSU will not stand for these types of things happening to the program. Just my opinion on the whole situation and want I feel the rest of the country perceives.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:12 pm

Botcat1234 wrote:As a father, I wouldnt feel comfortable sending my son to play at MSU at this time.
I think if Kramer would have left or is forced to leave that would send the most powerful message to everyone in the country that MSU will not stand for these types of things happening to the program. Just my opinion on the whole situation and want I feel the rest of the country perceives.

This is incredibly poignant. Compare MSU now, to Miami football (Coker), Buffalo football (Newheisel and Barnett), Husky football (Newheisel), Cincinnati basketball (Huggins), Baylor basketball (Bliss), and the list probably goes on and on.

One has to wonder how al this crap can fly around and none of stick to Krames?

I will say this: All players but Fuller were "FORMER" players, having been dismissed by Krames, one would assume, due to violating team rules. And, in the case of Fuller, it's not like he was a drug kingpin. Heck, I for one, wonder if he was set up given the quantity of the alleged transaction.

O'Brien simply appeared to be a criminal that was very effective at hiding his criminal lifestyle.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:40 pm

Some math:

Kramer's been head coach @ MSU for 7 seasons.

His first year, the entire squad was new to his program; let's assume it was 80 kids that year.

With incoming Freshman and transfers, let's assume that approximately 30% of each roster following Kramer's first year are "new" to his program. Using our current posted roster of 84 kids, that means approximately 25 young men are in their first year under Kramer at any given time.

Thus, in his 7 seasons, Kramer has had approximately 230 different kids in his program (80 + (6 X 25)). Due to kids leaving the program for various reasons, 230 is probably low, but will suffice for this argument.

If I'm not mistaken, there are 4 current and former players involved in recent scandals. That is 1.7% of the young men he's brought to MSU.

Or, try this: In any given season, there are 84 kids on the roster. That means 84 football players that could get into trouble. That's 588 kids in Kramer's 7 years. The current number of players in trouble with the law equates to 0.7% of his kids in any given season.

I'm not sure of national crime statistics, but I'm betting those #'s aren't worse than any national averages.

This is directed at those who want to label MSU football as an "outlaw" program or who have expressed concerns at sending their sons to play for Mike Kramer.

The bottom line is that about 98.3% of the kids under his tutelage have NOT gotten into trouble. If you're not going to send your son to play for MSU because of that misguided 1.7%, you better not send them out into general society either, because there's far more "criminals" out there than in MSU football...

tampa_griz · Post by **tampa_griz** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:14 pm

Good point El Gato. If you're too worried to the point of not sending your kids to MSU based on the unfortunate incidents as of late then you better just keep them at home. MSU Athletics aren't going to turn anyone into a drug dealer.

You can try everything in the book to ensure that people know that this behavior is unacceptable but eventually people are going to make their own decisions and be who they are. Kramer staying is a good thing for MSU.

If Kramer wasn't offered the Idaho job due to the recent negativity it's just a simple matter of Idaho covering their ass for the unfair politics and not an honest reflection of Kramer's character or integrity. Let me explain my thoughts on that further........Let's say that Kramer was offered and accepted the position at Idaho. Let's also say that a few years from now another Andre Fuller-type incident occurs at Idaho......another one that no one could see coming (anyone that claims they weren't surprised by Fuller's actions is a tool) if you're at all impartial and honest. If that happened I can already hear the sanctimonious cries of the press and the rest of the usual suspects saying "Why did we hire a coach that has a history of recruiting thugs? What were we thinking?". Which would be completely unfair. But that's the unfair nature of the press and politics. All said, this entire paragraph is pure speculation from the outset but I hope I articulated my point.

Good luck to Kramer and his continued career at MSU. I've always admired his class and demeanor. Here's to hoping no more players knife him in the back like this in the future.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:45 pm

El_Gato wrote:Some math:

Kramer's been head coach @ MSU for 7 seasons.

His first year, the entire squad was new to his program; let's assume it was 80 kids that year.

With incoming Freshman and transfers, let's assume that approximately 30% of each roster following Kramer's first year are "new" to his program. Using our current posted roster of 84 kids, that means approximately 25 young men are in their first year under Kramer at any given time.

Thus, in his 7 seasons, Kramer has had approximately 230 different kids in his program (80 + (6 X 25)). Due to kids leaving the program for various reasons, 230 is probably low, but will suffice for this argument.

If I'm not mistaken, there are 4 current and former players involved in recent scandals. That is 1.7% of the young men he's brought to MSU.

Or, try this: In any given season, there are 84 kids on the roster. That means 84 football players that could get into trouble. That's 588 kids in Kramer's 7 years. The current number of players in trouble with the law equates to 0.7% of his kids in any given season.

I'm not sure of national crime statistics, but I'm betting those #'s aren't worse than any national averages.

This is directed at those who want to label MSU football as an "outlaw" program or who have expressed concerns at sending their sons to play for Mike Kramer.

The bottom line is that about 98.3% of the kids under his tutelage have NOT gotten into trouble. If you're not going to send your son to play for MSU because of that misguided 1.7%, you better not send them out into general society either, because there's far more "criminals" out there than in MSU football...

Playing devil's advocate: Why should there be more than 0% on the MSU football team? If we are going to use statistics to dismiss the significance of the number of recent former players who are facing felony drug and/or murder charges, then we should use statistics to find out how many programs "should statistically" have these same problems.

Frankly, here's what I think may be partially to blame: Kramer's kind-heartedness. He's the guy who is known for giving troubled players a second chance. He doesn't give them a second chance once they are on board at MSU, but when they come to MSU from another program, he gives them a clean slate. Some guys, like Junior, make the most of their opportunity. Some don't.

If anything, I think MSU just needs to look harder at who they ask to transfer.

I won't bang on any parent who won't send their son to MSU. It's their business and they have there own ideals and expectations. It's undeniable, though, that this latest bit of press will not help recruiting. I just don't think there is any way to diminish the significance of these incidents, regardless of percentages.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 pm

bleedin,

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. To think that a program isn't going to face drugs & drug-related problems at some point or another is naive, however. From what I've seen & heard, drugs are becoming far more prevalent and more-easily accessible than ever on our college campuses. Heck, our good neighbors down the road basically told everyone in the city to "toke away"; the cops no longer will bust you simply for indulging in a little weed. What kind of message is that?

I'd be willing to bet that there are players on EVERY team in America involved in drugs to some extent; the best you can hope for is that when they ARE caught, there is a zero tolerance policy. Yes, I would hope that our ultimate goal is ZERO drug use by our athletes and that the leaders in our Athletic department are taking every step possible to prevent it, detect it, and deal with it swiftly. But to claim that this problem is somehow worse @ MSU or on our football team is ludicrous, IMO.

I'm also not suggesting that we don't do anything & everything within our power to research potential recruits/transfers to the best of our ability. (BTW, weren't all the guys involved in this brought in as freshman, not transfers?) There's only so much they CAN do, however; I seriously doubt that Coach K has brought in a so-called "troubled" recruit and then just simply left him to his own devices.

My point was simply that I'm sure most, if not all, high school & college students today are faced with drugs on a regular basis; going to MSU to play football or simply for an education isn't going to increase that exposure more than on any campus in America, IMO.

Botcat1234 · Post by **Botcat1234** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:32 pm

As far as drugs being everywhere in society I would agree...especially on college campus. But the reason I would never send my son to MSU is because....can you name another Div 1 program in the last 2 years that has had current/former players arrested for selling cocaine and still played on the team. Current/former players arrested on Murder charges. Are you kidding me???....This is NOT normal for most college football programs. In the real world all of these things happen yes they do but...I however will chose to send my son to a school that hasn't had all the bad publicity the past year as long as Kramer is still the head coach. It looks bad that he is still there, almost like the school doesnt get that it needs a major makeover.

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:02 pm

Botcat1234 wrote:As far as drugs being everywhere in society I would agree...especially on college campus. But the reason I would never send my son to MSU is because....can you name another Div 1 program in the last 2 years that has had current/former players arrested for selling cocaine and still played on the team. Current/former players arrested on Murder charges. Are you kidding me???....This is NOT normal for most college football programs. In the real world all of these things happen yes they do but...I however will chose to send my son to a school that hasn't had all the bad publicity the past year as long as Kramer is still the head coach. It looks bad that he is still there, almost like the school doesnt get that it needs a major makeover.

Baylor, Northern Colorado

canyoncat · Post by **canyoncat** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:03 pm

MSU isn't even guilty of letting a player continue to play after selling cocaine! The bust was last week, not last June. The alleged sale took place in June and the arrest took place last week. I'll guarantee that if Fuller was arrested in June he would not have played this year. Kramer, the coaching staff and the administration didn't even know this had happend until last week.

MSU will do and is doing everything within its power to eliminate these problems. Question is, how will they do it? Not sure there is an easy answer to that.

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:08 pm

catamaran wrote:
Botcat1234 wrote:As far as drugs being everywhere in society I would agree...especially on college campus. But the reason I would never send my son to MSU is because....can you name another Div 1 program in the last 2 years that has had current/former players arrested for selling cocaine and still played on the team. Current/former players arrested on Murder charges. Are you kidding me???....This is NOT normal for most college football programs. In the real world all of these things happen yes they do but...I however will chose to send my son to a school that hasn't had all the bad publicity the past year as long as Kramer is still the head coach. It looks bad that he is still there, almost like the school doesnt get that it needs a major makeover.
Baylor, Northern Colorado

Did their coaches get fired because of it? Serious question

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:19 pm

Baylor yes, NC no. The Baylor situation was way worse in that the coach instructed the players to lie about what had transpired even though he knew about it. He was untouched until those facts came out

Botcat1234 · Post by **Botcat1234** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:56 am

Baylor if I'm not mistaken was with the basketball team. As far as Northern Colorado it happened with the staff there 1st year on the job....so the AD and pres. will give him time because he didnt recruit those kids....unlike Kramer.

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:25 am

Botcat1234 wrote:Baylor if I'm not mistaken was with the basketball team. As far as Northern Colorado it happened with the staff there 1st year on the job....so the AD and pres. will give him time because he didnt recruit those kids....unlike Kramer.

Sorry, didn't realize we have different levels of tolerace for athletes/coaches doing things dependent on what sport they play/coach

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:44 am

Botcat1234 wrote:Baylor if I'm not mistaken was with the basketball team. As far as Northern Colorado it happened with the staff there 1st year on the job....so the AD and pres. will give him time because he didnt recruit those kids....unlike Kramer.

Botcat1234,
I read your posts last night and had to think about it for a while. First off, let me preface everything by saying that I'm terribly embarassed, angry, disappointed in what has happened.

But, I think you are merging some myth with fact to come up with a misconstrued opinion. Also, it seems you are lumping everything that has happened onto Kramer's shoulders. Please allow me to explain:

1) It is ALLEGED that Andre (the only current player involved) sold the drugs to an informant in June. However, he was not arrested until very recently. So, you saying that Kramer allowed a drug dealer to play is both grossly inaccurate but also libelous.

2) I'm curious as to your opinion on Mick Durham? Why? Because many of the off the field/court incidents that have come to light recently have dealt with both basketball and football players, both active and former. I personally think that Mick is one of the most honorable men out there. Do you believe he also brought in questionable characters? Again, your lumping all of these events onto the shoulders of Kramer is, well, wrong.

3) One of the things I really like about Kramer is that a lot of how he handles a team centers around him taking these young athletes and treating them as his own sons; at times he can be harsh with them and at times he shows mercy and forgiveness.

4) You, as a parent, have to know that as that person all you can do is instill in your child values that give them the ability to make decisions of right and wrong. But, ultimately, those children will not have us around to help them with the decision; sometimes they'll choose right and sometimes they'll choose wrong. I can't even begin to tell you how many hard lessons I've learned in my life that were things my parents told me were wrong in the first place. Now, I know we're talking about extreme events here (drug dealing and murder). And, in no way do I make excuses for those individuals. But, at the same time, I also recognize that several of those individuals came from good families and I'm willing to bet that they were not encouraged to engage in either of those activities. The same can be said of Kramer and his staff. So, to pin this on his shoulders entirely is unfair.

5) Kramer, being a person of whom I believe is of the highest character, has shouldered some of this blame. I think he is acting like any person who becomes emotionally invested in a person who has made a horrendous mistake. He is evaluating what he could have done better. I know I will/have when my children disappoint me with their choices.

Finally, there's no doubt in reading your posts that these events are concerning to you. I admire you for that. But, I just think the level of blame you have put on individuals involved with the university is unfairly high. I hope that you "help" your son selecte the best college for him from an athletic and, more importantly, an academic standpoint. Good luck......I'm sure it's a stressful time for all.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

omahacat · Post by **omahacat** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:07 am

I respect the last post but I also agree with 1234. He has some very valid points. I played for the Cats and right now I would not want my son to play for Kramer. I like the Kramer (who doesn't) he is very personable, but someone has to be held accountable.

Merry Christmas to everyone from Huskerland!

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:08 am

Even though this doesn't fit within society today, I have an idea who to hold accountable.....those who committed the crimes

omahacat · Post by **omahacat** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:25 am

That's true but there are too many black eyes on his resume to stomache anymore.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:34 am

catamaran wrote:Even though this doesn't fit within society today, I have an idea who to hold accountable.....those who committed the crimes

I am pretty sure society is in full agreement on that one ... especially considering that the people who allegedly committed the crimes are the ones being processed by the legal system.

Is Kramer Staying a Good Thing?

Is Kramer Staying at MSU a Good Thing?