Kansas State Player Suspensions May Have Damaged Coach Martin

When Kansas State basketball coach Frank Martin lost his temper at the press conference following his team’s loss to UNLV last night, what sent him over the edge was reporters’ interest in the impact of the absence of two key players who had been suspended by the NCAA shortly before the game. Although Martin was ostensibly coming to the defense of his players, our analysis indicates that he was more interested in defending himself.

According to media reports, prior to the press conference a Kansas State spokesman told reporters that Martin would not take questions about the NCAA’s suspension of seniors Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly for accepting impermissible benefits relating to the purchase of clothing at a local store. There was no reason to believe that questions about the impact of the suspensions on the team’s performance were off limits, so a reporter asked Martin how his players who were on the court responded to the absence of Pullen and Kelly. This was Martin’s reply:

"You guys are trying to get under my skin today, aren't you? I've been pretty respectful of the media my whole career. I don't want to hear anything else about leadership [in reference to] anybody other than the guys on the basketball floor. I do not want you to refer any questions again about anybody that was not dressed, in uniform here today."

That Martin’s response was to slip into attack mode to chastise and berate the reporters is a classic indicator of deceptive behavior: The accused, or a person whose guilt makes him feel that he’s being accused, will attempt to shift the focus of blame back to the questioner. But what was particularly striking was Martin’s choice of the word “leadership” in demanding what not be discussed, along with his prohibition on questions “about anybody that was not dressed, in uniform here today.”

While Pullen and Kelly are clearly leaders on the court, the “leadership” responsibility ultimately rests with the head coach. Martin was apparently eager to divert attention away from the team’s leadership, particularly anyone -- like himself – who was not dressed in a uniform.

It appears that Martin sees the NCAA’s action as a statement that faults his leadership – a notion that might well have been reinforced by any Kansas State officials who had spoken with Martin about the suspensions. We are confident in concluding that the suspensions potentially were as damaging to Martin’s career as they were to his team’s performance.

In any case, the volume and intensity of Martin’s attack, combined with his audacity in dictating the terms of the questioning (and in the process biting the pen-holding hand that feeds him), was clearly designed to keep the press at arm’s length. That strongly suggests there is more to the story, and we will continue to provide a behavioral analysis of developments as they unfold.