Kansas St. Fires Head Coach after comments about his players

[Tanko]

No suprise here. Tang fired after the comments made about his players after last Wednesday's game vs Cincy. The post-game presser was brutal. Video in link.

What is shocking is K-state trying to fire him "for cause" so they won't have to pay the $18M he's owed. Pretty sure this will end up in court or settled.

Jerome Tang out at Kansas St.; coach to fight for-cause firing

Jerome Tang, who led Kansas State to the Elite Eight in his first season but has failed to replicate that success in his three seasons since, was fired for cause by the school.

www.espn.com

 

[Tanko]

@BMR Genie Can you edit the typo on the title.
It should read "Kansas St.". Thanks.

 

[BMR Genie]

@BMR Genie Can you edit the typo on the title.
It should read "Kansas St.". Thanks.

Sorry, I just saw this, Tank.. It should be corrected now.

 

[BMR Genie]

No suprise here. Tang fired after the comments made about his players after last Wednesday's game vs Cincy. The post-game presser was brutal. Video in link.

What is shocking is K-state trying to fire him "for cause" so they won't have to pay the $18M he's owed. Pretty sure this will end up in court or settled.

Jerome Tang out at Kansas St.; coach to fight for-cause firing

Jerome Tang, who led Kansas State to the Elite Eight in his first season but has failed to replicate that success in his three seasons since, was fired for cause by the school.

www.espn.com

I see a very frustrated, disappointed coach here.

If this is indeed stated on his contract, then the University wins this case.

"The basis for the for-cause firing, sources told ESPN, is language in Tang's contract that references any activity that brings "public disrepute, embarrassment, ridicule" to Kansas State."

 

[quantumleap]

I see a very frustrated, disappointed coach here.

If this is indeed stated on his contract, then the University wins this case.

"The basis for the for-cause firing, sources told ESPN, is language in Tang's contract that references any activity that brings "public disrepute, embarrassment, ridicule" to Kansas State."

I used to work at the law department for McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing (many years ago). One thing I learned is that statements like this are always up for debate.

Here's his "rant" which could be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is watching. Was this "public disrepute, embarrassing, ridicule" to the university or was he simply calling his players out, maybe for lack of effort? The lawyers will be sure to bring up the definition of these words and whether they fit.

 

[BMR Genie]

I used to work at the law department for McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing (many years ago). One thing I learned is that statements like this are always up for debate.

Here's his "rant" which could be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is watching. Was this "public disrepute, embarrassing, ridicule" to the university or was he simply calling his players out, maybe for lack of effort? The lawyers will be sure to bring up the definition of these words and whether they fit.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

 

[BigJay]

I used to work at the law department for McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing (many years ago). One thing I learned is that statements like this are always up for debate.

Here's his "rant" which could be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is watching. Was this "public disrepute, embarrassing, ridicule" to the university or was he simply calling his players out, maybe for lack of effort? The lawyers will be sure to bring up the definition of these words and whether they fit.

Silly. He didn’t really even say anything that bad. Just telling the truth.

 

[KVB]

I used to work at the law department for McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing (many years ago). One thing I learned is that statements like this are always up for debate.

Here's his "rant" which could be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is watching. Was this "public disrepute, embarrassing, ridicule" to the university or was he simply calling his players out, maybe for lack of effort? The lawyers will be sure to bring up the definition of these words and whether they fit.

Good post, quanter. Thenk you.

 

[Tanko]

I used to work at the law department for McDonnell Douglas before they were bought by Boeing (many years ago). One thing I learned is that statements like this are always up for debate.

Here's his "rant" which could be interpreted in different ways depending upon who is watching. Was this "public disrepute, embarrassing, ridicule" to the university or was he simply calling his players out, maybe for lack of effort? The lawyers will be sure to bring up the definition of these words and whether they fit.

I don't know. The school will say what they have to so that he is fired for cause and save $18M but, I don't think berating your players WHILE stating how important it is to wear the KSU purple meets the definition needed.

Embarrassing?
Ridicule?
Those are completely subjective and I don't think the school can stand on that in the "for cause" definition.

This is definitely going to court. Expect a settlement in a few months for some portion of the $18M.

 

[Tanko]

Silly. He didn’t really even say anything that bad. Just telling the truth.

That's my take. He actually stood up for the school, saying how they should be proud to wear the purple but I guess its all in how you interpret what he was saying which, to me is subjective, and thus open to interpretation by A COURT.

 

[europro]

Always a loser program anyways

 

[seaborneq]

Silly. He didn’t really even say anything that bad. Just telling the truth.

I agree. But when someone wants to get rid of you even innocent stuff is bad.

 

[seaborneq]

They wanted to fire him anyway. These coaches used to get a buyout and leave without any problems. Now the schools want to fire without cause when in reality the coach is just not winning enough. These new contracts will have “not winning enough” as a reasonable cause to fire and not pay the buyout soon.

 

[Tanko]

They wanted to fire him anyway. These coaches used to get a buyout and leave without any problems. Now the schools want to fire without cause when in reality the coach is just not winning enough. These new contracts will have “not winning enough” as a reasonable cause to fire and not pay the buyout soon.

That clause would be awesome.


One issue is a future coach will look at how they are treating Tang and take that into consideration. It’ll limit how good a coach they can get.

 

[BigJay]

I remember when Al Davis fired Lane Kiffin and used the same “for cause” excuse to get out of paying him.

I think an arbitrator ultimately ruled in the Raiders favor over about $3 million owed a couple of years later.

2:30 mark

 

[quantumleap]

Silly. He didn’t really even say anything that bad. Just telling the truth.

I agree.

 

[quantumleap]

Good post, quanter. Thenk you.

Thanks.

I always think of the time the company had a "test drill" for their emergency evacuation drill. The news reported that several people were injured because the lights went out deliberately and some people got trampled even though they knew it was a drill. Some people got injured going down the ramp. The people were suing the company because it never said lights going out was going to happen and therefore they couldn't be prepared for it.

I talked to one of the lawyers and he said they all have to sign a disclaimer about what constitutes neglect during things like this. He thought the claimants had no valid claim at all.

I'm going to see if I can find anything on the outcome of it. I'm guessing the insurance company (Lloyds of London) had to pay out something eventually.

 

[quantumleap]

Thanks.

I always think of the time the company had a "test drill" for their emergency evacuation drill. The news reported that several people were injured because the lights went out deliberately and some people got trampled even though they knew it was a drill. Some people got injured going down the ramp. The people were suing the company because it never said lights going out was going to happen and therefore they couldn't be prepared for it.

I talked to one of the lawyers and he said they all have to sign a disclaimer about what constitutes neglect during things like this. He thought the claimants had no valid claim at all.

I'm going to see if I can find anything on the outcome of it. I'm guessing the insurance company (Lloyds of London) had to pay out something eventually.

Here it is:
In 1992, McDonnell Douglas was sued by Dorothy Myles, a 60-year-old woman left quadriplegic after a 1991
MD-11 evacuation test in Long Beach, California. The suit alleged the company failed to adequately warn participants of risks or inform them that 28 people were injured in an earlier, identical drill that same day.
Key Details of the Case:

• The Incident: The, October 1991, FAA-mandated test for the MD-11 jetliner resulted in nearly 50 injuries, with participants jumping down a steep evacuation slide.
• Lawsuit Claims: Dorothy Myles, who was paid $49 to participate, alleged negligence and failure to disclose the high number of injuries in the previous, earlier session.
• Outcome & Impact: The test failed to meet safety requirements. Following the injuries and lawsuit, the FAA allowed a modified, safer test method for the MD-11 in 1993.
• Defendants: The suit named McDonnell Douglas and Air Cruisers, the manufacturer of the evacuation slide.

This incident highlighted severe safety failings during the certification of the MD-11, leading to stricter oversight of emergency evacuation drills by federal authorities.