Freakonomics on Firing Coaches

Discussion in 'GarryP's Trojan Huddle' started by heyrev, Jan 4, 2020.

  1. Freakonomics on Firing Coaches
    heyrev

    heyrev Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Jan 4, 2020
    #1
    Though this article is not new, the principles it lays down remain. Bottom line is firing head coaches, especially those with marginal success (Helton fits here. Fans forget his tenure produced the last nationally relevant team, #3 in final 2016 poll) rarely produces the result fans desire. Btw, this might be why Bohn chose to wait until an elite replacement could be hired. Anyway, interesting read.

    http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/
     
       
  2. JImmytheGreek

    JImmytheGreek Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    315
    Jan 4, 2020
    #2
    USC is the laughing stock of the college football world. We cannot begin to crawl out of the abyss until Helton is relieved of his duties. This sort of idiocy infuriates me.
     
  3. Jay4usc

    Jay4usc Points Member


    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    3,163
    Likes Received:
    3,342
    Jan 4, 2020
    #4
    2016 was still Sarkisian’s team. Those athletes committed to play for Sarkisian not Helton. It’s the third year where you see real results and Helton crapped out on his 3rd season
     
    The Garage Mahal, Troy70 and OC2SC like this.
  4. TrojanMoondoggie

    TrojanMoondoggie Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    1,067
    Jan 4, 2020
    #5
    I really don’t think USC can even be considered a laughing stock anymore. We’re beyond that. SC is irrelevant in football. And when the nation even thinks about USC, at all, they probably think about the scandals. And it becomes more like, ‘Yeah, whatever. Business as usual at USC.’
    USC is in a place of embarrassment right now. A source of pity more than laughter.
    That is, assuming USC is even thought of at all.
     
    gubo&palanka and ConquerorSC like this.
  5. conquest4ever81

    conquest4ever81 Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    644
    Jan 4, 2020
    #6
    The fact remains Helton coached that team. If Sark was allowed to remain those athletes would have been stuck with a absentee pill popping drowning in booze loser and no way close to playing in the Rose Bowl except against the bRuins.
     
  6. trojan raul

    trojan raul Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    690
    Jan 4, 2020
    #7
    The longer Helton stays on the more work the next coach has to build a foundation of kick ass, championship football. It starts in the weight room and is forged on the practice field. That type of coach needs to have a relentless vision and soldiers under him who will execute it.

    That's NOT Helton and current staff.
     
    gubo&palanka and 1988Trojan like this.
  7. LoyalTrojan

    LoyalTrojan Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,288
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    Jan 4, 2020
    #8
    upload_2020-1-4_15-22-27.jpeg
     
  8. heyrev

    heyrev Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Jan 4, 2020
    #9
    "USC hit pay dirt with Pete Carroll"...said NO ONE when hire was made. But I'm sure you were the only one who secretly knew he was an elite find, right?
    Look, I didn't post this to defend keeping Helton. USC needs to make a change. This article only gives pause to consider: 1. Timing, and 2. the next hire. Change for change sake is not going to help--in fact, it will hurt deeply if the wrong choice. I'm guessing that if a Pete Carroll was available to Bohn, Helton wouldn't be here.
    Btw, did you even read the article?
     
  9. eosophobia

    eosophobia Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    19
    Jan 4, 2020
    #10
    It does not matter that they hit pay dirt with Pete; we got better once the change was made. The article says we "likely" should have been worse after hiring him, we weren't.

    Mediocre Clemson should have been worse when Swinney took over. Mediocre Alabama should have kept Shula. Sure these might the exception to the rule.. I think the article is applicable to a fan base (particularly Professional) who does not have the built in advantages that we HAD. If this kind of thinking went on with Folt or Bohn, they are cowards.
     
    gubo&palanka and 1988Trojan like this.
  10. 1988Trojan

    1988Trojan Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    350
    Jan 4, 2020
    #11
    Darnold saved Gomer lazy dumb arse in 2016 ... he probably would had saved fat lazy drunk Suckisian’s too. So thank god Suck was a complete mental psych job and screwed that up too
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  11. qqqqqqqman

    qqqqqqqman Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    4,653
    Jan 4, 2020
    #12

    Yeah, I read the article. It implied that hiring a new coach isn’t necessarily the answer.

    My point was, in the Carroll case, THAT CHANGE WAS MADE. They took the chance, instead of staying pat on a crappy hand,

    I didn’t say Pete Carroll was “an elite coach” when he was hired. Did you read my post? The point is that a change was made INSTEAD of just waiting for an “elite coach”....and it worked out great. So there’s THAT.
     
    JC SOXX likes this.
  12. 13Perspective

    13Perspective Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    50
    Jan 4, 2020
    #13
    If an organization is clear about its identify - what it aspires to and how it wants to operate towards achieving those goals - then sizing up and making decisive changes when current leaders aren't cutting it is not hard. There's no muddying things up with endless rationalizations about "well the next guy could be worse". So much apologizing for visibly poor performance.
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  13. 87trojan

    87trojan Points Member


    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2019
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    149
    Jan 4, 2020
    #14
    I get the notion of change for change sake might not be very effecrive. The thing is a new hire if done correctly would breath desperate life into a diminished brand. USC still has the locale,heritage, and ability to be great again.

    I'd much rather be USC than Miami, Nebraska, or Tennessee right now. Those are programs that won national titles in the 1990s and have some serious disadvantages getting back to the top of the mountain.

    You get the hire correct this next year, and USC's non conference schedule gets more favorable, and we are still in the Pac 12 South which if we can't consistently win that I don't know what to think. Even Clueless Clay went unbeaten in the Pac 12 South this year.
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  14. conquest4ever81

    conquest4ever81 Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2017
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    644
    Jan 4, 2020
    #15
    You morons who refuse to give Helton the credit due to him for winning the Rose Bowl are spiteful idiots.
    download - 2019-12-17T065416.596.jpeg
    Winners never quit and quitters never win.
     
  15. 23 Blast on 3rd and 7

    23 Blast on 3rd and 7 Points Member


    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2019
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    422
    Jan 4, 2020
    #16
    Thi
    This is 100% spot-on
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  16. heyrev

    heyrev Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Jan 5, 2020
    #17
    Yes, the operative phrase: "if done correctly."
    The article eludes to the damage of desperate hires that do nothing but temporarily appease anxious fanbases. Firing coaches without thoughtful replacements is worse than keeping ones who win, but don't "win enough." The instability is lends to the program is the long-term death knell. USC is at a very critical juncture. This next hire has to be better than just good or hopeful. Again, only guessing Bohn knows this well.
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  17. norcalsurfer

    norcalsurfer Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,925
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Jan 5, 2020
    #18
    What happened in the season finale in 2017, 2018 and 2019?
     
    gubo&palanka likes this.
  18. AMLTrojan

    AMLTrojan Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,819
    Jan 5, 2020
    #19
    Great article, but as the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This goes back to the problem of treating everything as if it were a bell curve and within some regular deviation from the average. You need to read Nassim Nicholas Taleb to understand the perils of these stats.

    Here's the point: There are a tremendous few college programs that have money, history, and geography in their favor... and then there are hundreds of "everyone else". You can't, for statistical purposes, like this Freakonomics article and the studies it cites, treat the former like the latter.

    Since the FA Cup third round was this weekend, let's look across the pond. The FA Cup is famous because literally any and every registered football (soccer) club in England plays in this tournament: if you are Little Sisters of the Poor Volunteer Nunnery FC, with a good draw and lucky results, you can find yourself hosting Liverpool at some point in the tournament.

    Now, when we're talking about e.g. Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, and other massive football (soccer) clubs, you cannot treat them the same in statistics as you would, say, Nottingham Forest or LSPVN FC. The reason is, if you're Liverpool, and your team is taking a dump under your current coach, you absolutely have to keep replacing your players and coaches until you hit on your next Mo Salah and Jurgen Klopp. The resources at your disposal, and the potential revenue from the Champions League and a worldwide fanbase, demand it. With Jurgen Klopp, Liverpool FC has a legit chance of winning the FA Cup, even playing most of their B squad in the early rounds. Meanwhile, you can be LSPVN FC or Nottingham Forest and luck into your own Jurgen Klopp... but you'll never have Mo Salah and you'll still be Nottingham Forest and at best a potential Premier League relegation zone team.

    The point is, who you are matters more than what statistics say. USC is massively more valuable a brand than most other football programs and comes loaded with inherent championship potential. Ergo, we're idiots for keeping a known subpar coach like Clay Helton. The same is true for programs like Miami and Tennessee -- they're better off cycling through coaches as quickly as possible until they hit on someone legit. As for everyone else, you're by definition run-of-the-mill and a statistic. So for you, yes, unless your coach is completely awful with the donor base, incompetent as a coach, and liable to get you sideways with the NCAA for recruiting violations, Freakonomics is correct: you're probably better off keeping him and giving him a long-ass runway to learn on the job.
     
    nvargas, gubo&palanka and Sam Bam like this.
  19. DaFireMedic

    DaFireMedic Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    10,221
    Jan 5, 2020
    #20
    We need a new HC. But we need to get this hire right.
     

Share This Page