I live near Manhattan and work in Manhattan. There was certainly a sense among the fan base that Snyder needed to retire and some fear his son would be elevated. The departure of Currie a couple of years earlier was due to conflict with Snyder but the football coach won, not the AD (not that that should always be the outcome but Pelini's assessment of HP and SE was equally crass and accurate). I don't think the dysfunction in the KSU program was even in the same galaxy as the Perlman/Eichorst/Riley cluster. I get that it's time to quit using those circumstances as an excuse but I think things in Lincoln were an utter dumpster fire that was closer to what Bill Snyder started with than what he left.
The thing about Sipple is that he hinted often during the Perlman/Eichorst era at the meddling and dysfunction but would never spell it out. He knew the truth but wasn't willing to sacrifice his standing with the Athletic Department to expose the issues. We had several threads on here where folks would staunchly defend the great character of Harvey Perlman. Even those of us who saw it in less black-and-white terms (I think HP was good for the academic side of the university but a complete disaster for the athletic department) were criticized as being conspiracy theorists for thinking HP could do anything wrong. From my perspective, Sipple either needs to back up his current statements by having the cajones to put the past dysfunction in print or let it go. I'm OK with either. It might make people more inclined to patience if they really understood the condition of the program at the end of the HP/SE era. On the other hand, we are what we are and it's the decisions from here forward that will determine our future.
I look forward to the day that performance on the football field renders these discussions moot.
The thing about Sipple is that he hinted often during the Perlman/Eichorst era at the meddling and dysfunction but would never spell it out. He knew the truth but wasn't willing to sacrifice his standing with the Athletic Department to expose the issues. We had several threads on here where folks would staunchly defend the great character of Harvey Perlman. Even those of us who saw it in less black-and-white terms (I think HP was good for the academic side of the university but a complete disaster for the athletic department) were criticized as being conspiracy theorists for thinking HP could do anything wrong. From my perspective, Sipple either needs to back up his current statements by having the cajones to put the past dysfunction in print or let it go. I'm OK with either. It might make people more inclined to patience if they really understood the condition of the program at the end of the HP/SE era. On the other hand, we are what we are and it's the decisions from here forward that will determine our future.
I look forward to the day that performance on the football field renders these discussions moot.
