Freakonomics on Firing Coaches

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

  1. 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 7, 2020
    #41
    The problem here is we are already flirting with no return and headed up to no return's place for a cup of coffee and at least some making out on no return's couch. We all know where that will lead and no USC fan can want that to happen.
     
  2. heyrev

    heyrev Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    1,949
    Jan 8, 2020
    #42
    I get it. Yes, there is a problem. Yes, we are flirting with permanent damage. All I'm speaking against is the clamor for "any coach but Helton" screed. That isn't going to help. I'll leave it there.
     
  3. 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 8, 2020
    #43
    Fair enough. I'll only say I don't think there is an "Anybody But Helton" movement afoot here or anywhere else honestly. If anything there is too much of a "Meyer or Bust" sentiment for me. As I said I'm a bit of an agnostic on Meyer. I wouldn't have a problem if he was hired, but can understand why he might not be, and would probably be less surprised by some negative issues arising in a Meyer Era, than some other potential new head coaches' tenures.

    I believe there are other coaches who can make USC Football more successful and more successful in the ways we would hope without creating new ethical or moral scandals for the University to have to address with everything already on its plate. I don't think just any coach out there could do it, but given the fixes this head coach could implement if he wanted to and the difference they could and would make, there are a decent number of head coaches as well as coordinators who could replace him successfully.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  4. nvargas

    nvargas Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,493
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Jan 8, 2020
    #44
    I think what's missing in our admin is the foresight to plan 2-3 years in advance, to cultivate what's needed to work out the kinks so you're in a position to make moves when the time comes...rather than react in a rash manner based on public outcry or the need to react.

    You knew 2 years ago Helton was not the answer, not going to be the longterm solution. This is not opinion, it's simply reality. Bless his heart, he's not equipped to operate at the level we need, he doesn't have the tools, nor will he be developing them anytime soon (he's no spring chicken).

    You need some gameplanning that's managing the operating budget, to know exactly where we stand at any given time. If you want to tarmac Helton mid-season, who's your backup? Who would have been our backup last season? A coach we've since canned?

    There always has to be an interim and a succession plan. You can't sign a longterm contract and handcuff yourself to a coach whose name is not Saban/Meyer, and allow him to bring in cut-rate assistants.

    The marketing/gameday experience has to be managed so you're generating max-value to enable you to make financial moves, rather than tell the fanbase to eat cake while you're pulling-in 40k attendance games. It's a whole cohevise business operation, and we seem to have none of it down.

    While I'm on the revenue subject, I think we've hit rockbottom with our overall heritage/prominance that we may now look into uniform changes as a way to make more $. I used to think we could avoid that, assuming we'd be at the top again...but that ship looks to have sailed.
     
  5. 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 8, 2020
    #45
    The problem with that theory about succession plans is they are for successful programs. You don't expect to be firing your coach when you hire them, ideally, unless your program is really, really , really, really, really unsuccessful. You hope you have made the right hire right up until the time you fire them, really.

    Succession plans apply more - and more effectively - where you have highly successful coaches over a longer term, and usually they work best when the successor comes from within the successful program, see Lincoln Riley at Chokelahoma, or John Robinson's earlier tenure here, because that approach maintains continuity , consistency, and stability, which reassures current and future players of the program's direction. And even that isn't foolproof as Alabama's probably seen their succession plan go up in smoke a couple of times. And Clemson's succession plan is in jeopardy on a year-to-year basis cause its Brett Venables in Versions A,B, and C at this point.

    If anything whether there is an interim coach in between, since the new coach is effectively brought in to undo what the previous coach has done in any number of ways you can't really plan for that, unless you assume or expect the predecessor to fail even as you are handing him the job. You can begin to plan that sort of change if you are proactive or visionary enough, but that sort of AD is a rare quantity. Unfortunately when you have to fire someone it can work out for the better or the worse, but there isn't a simple smooth plan for it.
     
  6. nvargas

    nvargas Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,493
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Jan 8, 2020
    #46
    Agree that succession is ideal in a solid program, the variables are known and accounted for. We're not that, so no point in going down that road.

    The bleeding has to stop somewhere, and it's clear it isn't going to be in 2020. My hope is that Bohn is knowledgeable and competent enough to start placing the building blocks for continuity from here on...that he's forming the relationships with SC alum/former players to restore the program utilizing our innate advantages, rather than fighting against them as Helton/Swann/Haden had.

    Seattle under Paul Allen's ownership had a vision, as does Balmer and the Clippers. The plan was there before the pieces actually were. Allen knew he could bring in PC's charisma/energy, and hand over most of the decisions to him to basically run the team. That was before all these new teams started doing it. That takes balls.

    Balmer had this attitude like he was not going to be stopped. Yes, the money is a huge factor, but it's more than that. Cuban and the Russian dude that bought the Nets also threw money, but with varying degrees of success.

    SC has been fighting against itself since the snactions. Using less and less of what makes it unique, and somehow trying to be common. I don't get it.
     
  7. 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 8, 2020
    #47
    Nice post nvargas. The only point I'd make is the owners you refer to are in professional sports, and despite some false allegations to the contrary the USC Athletic Department is not a professional sports program, certainly no more so than any other major college athletic and likely far less so that many if not most.

    But where I really agree with you is your last point, I think USC has been its own worst enemy ever since the sanctions with poor and yes short-sighted appointments of inadequate head coaches, ineffectual and incompetent athletic directors ill-equipped to handle the challenges handed them as they needed to be, all under the auspices of an Administration if not directly hostile the football program than disconnected deeply from it and incapable of understanding its importance to the University may be greater now than at any other time in recent memory ironically enough.

    But I don't think it's all the coaches or the ADs or the Administration. I think the NCAA intentionally knee-capped USC Football to benefit other major programs who simply felt they could not compete with USC on the field or off, and I think we can guess who some of them are. This is why the NCAA went to the unprecedented lengths it did combining investigations of multiple programs in order to justify an LOIC finding which allowed them to issue to bizarrely severe punishment against the Football for the behavior of a single player and his family over 100 miles from the USC Campus involving no one associated with USC but an aspiring sports agent.

    This is confirmed by the NCAA crackdown on attendance at USC Practices and the USC Sidelines during games of Hollywood celebrities even though not once was any of these people cited even in an allegation of NCAA Violations. This was clearly an attempt to further even the playing field in major program football recruiting of the nation's best players beyond what the scholarship reductions as outrageous as they were, would already do. There is no doubt the NCAA acted out of animus and malice toward the USC the USC Football Program, and to alter the national balance of power in college football rather than to fairly and faithfully administer its rules.

    And one other factor is probably the O. J. Simpson situation. Regardless of where you stand on his guilt or innocence in the murder cases of the robbery conviction he served time for, it is hard to celebrate his greatest moments - clearly some of USC Football and USC Men's Track and Field's greatest moments without at best feeling at bit awkward yourself and at worst getting into some kind of argument about his post - USC personal life.

    Point being especially with Reggie Bush becoming such a polarizing figure, Pat Haden almost Public Enemy Number One of USC to many fans and alums today (or Number Two to the hardcore anti- Reggie Bush people), and now John Robinson and Marcus Allen's loyalty to USC being pretty hotly debated recently, just how closely and comfortably can you tie yourself to our uniquely special heritage as the University itself and the Football Program should be doing?

    Which brings us full circle to the fact that our current head coach doesn't want to tie himself and his program to our past and the players from that past, because he knows that they know he isn't up to the job, period. And that even if they don't speak out against him to that effect, their presence and their playing history and the work of their head coaches is itself an indictment of his inadequate work in that regard, and that's the main reason he doesn't want to reach out to those players and ex-coaches I think or fear.
     

Share This Page