The "he hasn't coached a game" argument is pretty embarrassing. Is this the company line in Bramlage?
Currie's line was that he's coached and won a shitload more games than Frank and accordingly is better.
Yeah, that was pretty damn stupid on Currie's part.
I don't like how KSU has framed the Weber hire. They won't come out and say why they hired him (obviously), but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I can compartmentalize the "why" and live with it, but it wasn't some sort of coup that we should all be doing cartwheels over.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what we think. A fair amount (not all) of the national media that doesn't bother to pay close attention to us--think ESPN who doesn't know anything in-depth about our program--have eaten this hire up and called it a solid way to recover from Frank Martin leaving. As long as Currie's decision-making acumen is being praised nationally, our opinions mean nothing. The only time they ever will is if the big donors revolt, and the donors aren't going to revolt until at least year 3 or 4 if Weber sinks like most of us think he will.
Sure, Currie's torched his chances among schools that have a history of doing things under the table, but he's essentially raised his profile amongst schools that are obsessed with winning "the right way" or are about to get slammed/have been slammed by NCAA sanctions and need a new athletic director to come in and give an appearance of cleaning things up to the outside world. Considering how many schools are in the crosshairs of the NCAA these days, it's not necessarily a bad image for Currie to have.
