Fire John Currie

[kso_FAN]

Honestly, none of what Currie says here makes me furious. My time of being upset was gone soon after it was clear that we didn't even consider Underwood. I said at the time that Currie was sticking with and tying himself to the coach he hired, and if he is intent on keeping oscar another year, it was absolutely the right thing to make some sort of statement of support. Plenty of ADs have given coaches a vote of confidence and then fired them the next year and I think Currie will do exactly that if next season looks like the last two. But he still has to sell the program for the future and to get people in the seats next year and he is doing exactly that. Like or not, while many K-Staters were on board with bringing Brad home, the intensity of the gE sentiment is small minority. If oscar fails next year he will be gone.

What is failure?  I think the success bar is set very low.

Not making the tournament.

And yes, Currie has set the bar low, that wasn't my point.

Though ultimately if Currie hangs on to a failing oscar too long, his job will be in jeopardy. I think he's smart enough to know that.

['taterblast]

it's just all bullshit. he has to support "his coach," but it is all just such bullshit and annoying to read.

[ChiComCat]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

[Woogy]

What is failure?  I think the success bar is set very low.

Not making the tournament.

And yes, Currie has set the bar low, that wasn't my point.

Though ultimately if Currie hangs on to a failing oscar too long, his job will be in jeopardy. I think he's smart enough to know that.

Which tournament is the question. We should be wary of that bar including a high (home host) NIT bid...

[#LIFE]

oscar is fine if he is a couple games above .500 next year and an NIT bid. Like _FAN said, I was done after he didn't go Underwood. I knew it probably wasn't going to happen but Currie could have won my support back if he makes that move. I think Brad would have retired here and there is no indication that he would fail here. If he somehow did, I doubt many people would have been too upset with Currie for taking the gamble, besides Kenn of course.

[ChiComCat]

Oh, I think if oscar makes the NIT he is back for another year regardless of being a home team.  Not only that, but the "bowl cuts" do nothing but pick up steam in their support of him

[pissclams]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

that's the thing.  his job isn't to build oscar a pillow fort and make sure the idiot is comfortable as can be.
if currie had a clue, he could try and act like he's not talking to a bunch of bumbling mongloids like bowl cut kenn and instead pretend he thinks that the people he works for (us), have a functioning brain cell.

"yes our program has some problems.  no, i'm not happy with the progress we've made.  things have to get better and i expect that they will"

instead he panders to the rough ridin' idiots in our fanbase which i'm confident he feels make up 98% of us. i'm not sure he's wrong.

[michigancat]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

Except the last two seasons were acceptable, because he's still the coach.

And unlike FAN, I've been disappointed since he let Frank go and hired oscar. Like, of course he's going to support the coach who has met our expectations as a program over four years and has a strong young nucleus returning.

[kso_FAN]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

The only really disappointing quote was this one:

“I believe at this time next year I am going to feel really good about the progress we have made,” Currie said. “Just as good, if not better, than the progress we made from last year to now.”

Now, I think Currie really means the first step in "progress" was oscar turning over the roster, because obviously the progress from "last year to now" is hard to justify in wins and losses, especially in the league. And I think that "I am going to feel really good about the progress we have made" means showing up in wins and losses and making a trip to the NCAA. But at this point we also know that Currie supported oscar turning over his roster, even if they were players he recruited. He is admitting to giving oscar a 2nd chance and oscar (and maybe Currie) will sink or swim by that decision.

Of course most of my perception here is fueled by my optimism (which is much more than about anyone else here), but again, I think it is Currie's job to come out and say something and not to let the program and current coaches hang if he supports the staff in place.

[michigancat]

the "those are K-State guys" line was really the only thing I found objectionable. And borderline offensive.

He could have omitted that we're in a better place than we were 12 months ago line because that was all oscar's fault, but meh.

[Trim]

He should've called Lebron James out by name.

[Gooch]

The Octagon of Pretty Good Crowds Even Though We Lost Some Games

Way too cluttered for a tshirt

[michigancat]

the "those are K-State guys" line was really the only thing I found objectionable. And borderline offensive.

He could have omitted that we're in a better place than we were 12 months ago line because that was all oscar's fault, but meh.

Aren't they intertwined? These guys are KSU cats those other guys weren't it was a hard decision but one oscar had to make

yeah I suppose so. The second line trashes former players far more subtly.

[TheHamburglar]

Two things
1.

“But ultimately, it’s about the players he has brought into our program. Look at D.J. Johnson, Westicles and Claws, those are K-State guys. And they are all K-State guys who have a chance to have great seasons next year. That is a reflection of their coach.”

This is just pandering to the 98% of us he thinks are idiots.  He says these players oscar brought in and are a reflection of him.  He's throwing the old players under the bus, but he thinks we're too stupid to remember oscar brought them in too.  How are his perceived  positives of these players a reflection of the coach that brought them in, but the players they ran off also not a reflection of the coach that brought them in?  He can easily back oscar without repeatedly saying illogical crap like this. 

2. He mentions Bill twice.  First he says he doesn't put pressure on Bill, but he lets everyone know he has the same power over Bill he has over Susie Fritz, he just chooses not to use it.  Second, he takes a Bruve excuse and applies it to the football team, an excuse Bill didn't make. 

No one is talking about it, but he gave Kellis two quotes about Bill.  One where he implies FB was a similar disaster to MBB, then makes an unwanted excuse, and one where he publicly flexs his power over Bill.

[AbeFroman]

"Kstate is #family" (unless you don't kiss oscar's ass, then we'll throw you under the bus a few times, toss your corpse on the first train out of town, and then subtly talk crap on you in interviews for the next couple years)

[ChiComCat]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

Except the last two seasons were acceptable, because he's still the coach.

And unlike FAN, I've been disappointed since he let Frank go and hired oscar. Like, of course he's going to support the coach who has met our expectations as a program over four years and has a strong young nucleus returning.

I don't think you have to fire a coach to say the season was unacceptable.  I'm not saying we have a good coach, but if someone (Currie) actually thinks we do, firing the coach after 4 years that include 2 NCAA appearances and a conference championship seems premature.  If Currie is going to be responsible for hiring the next coach, I can see where that high of standard for a program of our level would give future coaches pause. 

The problem, obviously, was letting Frank go and only got worse with hiring oscar.  The issue of being seen as firing a coach prematurely could've been solved with Brad, but Currie let that ship sail.  At this point, I think continuing with oscar for another year is probably the best option for the program.  It shows we aren't a trigger happy AD to a future coach that may not have a NCAA ready roster and puts our young core in a position where they would transfer for 3 years to play 2.  Of course the only way keeping oscar for another year is the best option is if we actually hold him to a high standard.

[michigancat]

I find his bullshit hilarious but, as FAN alluded to, it is expected.  All I wanted was for him to come out and say that the last two seasons were disappointing which he did.  Some sort of acknowledgement that those are not acceptable is a step in the right direction, imo.

Except the last two seasons were acceptable, because he's still the coach.

And unlike FAN, I've been disappointed since he let Frank go and hired oscar. Like, of course he's going to support the coach who has met our expectations as a program over four years and has a strong young nucleus returning.

I don't think you have to fire a coach to say the season was unacceptable.  I'm not saying we have a good coach, but if someone (Currie) actually thinks we do, firing the coach after 4 years that include 2 NCAA appearances and a conference championship seems premature.  If Currie is going to be responsible for hiring the next coach, I can see where that high of standard for a program of our level would give future coaches pause. 

I think I'm just being an obnoxious pedant about what "unacceptable" means. If you don't fire him, you're accepting the results.  I'll stop now. 

The problem, obviously, was letting Frank go and only got worse with hiring oscar.  The issue of being seen as firing a coach prematurely could've been solved with Brad, but Currie let that ship sail.  At this point, I think continuing with oscar for another year is probably the best option for the program.  It shows we aren't a trigger happy AD to a future coach that may not have a NCAA ready roster and puts our young core in a position where they would transfer for 3 years to play 2.  Of course the only way keeping oscar for another year is the best option is if we actually hold him to a high standard.

As someone mentioned (I think Pan), the best time to let him go is after 2017-18. Wade, Stokes, and Brown would be seniors for the next coach and presumably, the buyout would be low. A primary reason Huggins worked out so well was because he had Harris, Martin, and Wright as seniors and Stewart and Hoskins as juniors. We also saw what happened when Frank left oscar with a lot of talent and experience. I think a HUGE factor for coaches looking at changing jobs is the roster they're inheriting. It would be for me, at least.

[Missouriscribe]

Two things
1.

“But ultimately, it’s about the players he has brought into our program. Look at D.J. Johnson, Westicles and Claws, those are K-State guys. And they are all K-State guys who have a chance to have great seasons next year. That is a reflection of their coach.”

This is just pandering to the 98% of us he thinks are idiots.  He says these players oscar brought in and are a reflection of him.  He's throwing the old players under the bus, but he thinks we're too stupid to remember oscar brought them in too.  How are his proceed positives of these players a reflection of the coach that brought them in, but the players they ran off also not a reflection of the coach that brought them in?  He can easily back oscar without repeatedly saying illogical crap like this. 

2. He mentions Bill twice.  First he says he doesn't put pressure on Bill, but he lets everyone know he has the same power over Bill he has over Susie Fritz, he just chooses not to use it.  Second, he takes a Bruve excuse and applies it to the football team, an excuse Bill didn't make. 

No one is talking about it, but he gave Kellis two quotes about Bill.  One where he implies FB was a similar disaster to MBB, then makes an unwanted excuse, and one where he publicly flexs his power over Bill.

This. Currie seems more out of touch than I had ever realized. He seemed smarter than this. I'm genuinely surprised. At the minimum, he is pissing off football check writers that support Bill.

[ChiComCat]

The problem, obviously, was letting Frank go and only got worse with hiring oscar.  The issue of being seen as firing a coach prematurely could've been solved with Brad, but Currie let that ship sail.  At this point, I think continuing with oscar for another year is probably the best option for the program.  It shows we aren't a trigger happy AD to a future coach that may not have a NCAA ready roster and puts our young core in a position where they would transfer for 3 years to play 2.  Of course the only way keeping oscar for another year is the best option is if we actually hold him to a high standard.

As someone mentioned (I think Pan), the best time to let him go is after 2017-18. Wade, Stokes, and Brown would be seniors for the next coach and presumably, the buyout would be low. A primary reason Huggins worked out so well was because he had Harris, Martin, and Wright as seniors and Stewart and Hoskins as juniors. We also saw what happened when Frank left oscar with a lot of talent and experience. I think a HUGE factor for coaches looking at changing jobs is the roster they're inheriting. It would be for me, at least.

Although I like Stokes/Brown/Wade, I think at some point you have to let the chips fall where they may.  If oscar doesn't make the NCAAs this year, he has had more seasons of failure than success.  At that point I think we are setting the bar on what is acceptable.

[kso_FAN]

I don't think you have to fire a coach to say the season was unacceptable.  I'm not saying we have a good coach, but if someone (Currie) actually thinks we do, firing the coach after 4 years that include 2 NCAA appearances and a conference championship seems premature.  If Currie is going to be responsible for hiring the next coach, I can see where that high of standard for a program of our level would give future coaches pause. 

The problem, obviously, was letting Frank go and only got worse with hiring oscar.  The issue of being seen as firing a coach prematurely could've been solved with Brad, but Currie let that ship sail.  At this point, I think continuing with oscar for another year is probably the best option for the program.  It shows we aren't a trigger happy AD to a future coach that may not have a NCAA ready roster and puts our young core in a position where they would transfer for 3 years to play 2.  Of course the only way keeping oscar for another year is the best option is if we actually hold him to a high standard.

I agree with all of this.

Rusty's explanation about "unacceptable" was what I thought he was doing.

The interpretation of the Bill comments is interesting. I don't think Currie was being stupid or intentional there, but it does show that no matter how general you make your comments, you will eventually reveal something about what you really think. I think that's all Currie did there. I think there is an implication with both that a) I am allowing for analysis/excuses right now but b) eventually college sports is about winning. Clearly, Currie is putting some value on winning "the right way", but also that eventually if the winning doesn't happen he will be forced to find another "right way" winning option.

[sys]

i don't think any of the returning players or incoming freshmen are good enough that they are relevant to if or when to make a coaching change.

[BrokenSky1113]

That article made me so mad that I punched a wall while still holding a coffee mug. Now my had is all cut up.

Half of that article is jingling keys for the tucks and the other half is lies.

[michigancat]

i don't think any of the returning players or incoming freshmen are good enough that they are relevant to if or when to make a coaching change.

They aren't now or probably even next year but there's a good chance they would be if they are all around as seniors.

[sys]

i don't think any of the returning players or incoming freshmen are good enough that they are relevant to if or when to make a coaching change.

They aren't now or probably even next year but there's a good chance they would be if they are all around as seniors.

that's ridiculous.  this is panj?  good lord, panj.

[kso_FAN]

Sometimes players develop more than we initially assume. Sometimes 3 star recruits are better than we ever anticipated. Of course much of the time they don't.