[pcgoode]

The answer is I hope so. How else to explain their results, including losing ten of the last sixteen games to us (as Troy Clardy points out in his last podcast)? With all of the history, talent and resources that their team has, it is amazing that they have underachieved for so long. There may be other forces at work, mind you (hubris and the circus atmosphere that goes along with USC football generally comes to mind). Any thoughts on why they keep getting their coaching hires wrong, and whether they will get it right this time?

[pcgoode]

The answer is I hope so. How else to explain their results, including losing ten of the last sixteen games to us (as Troy Clardy points out in his last podcast)? With all of the history, talent and resources that their team has, it is amazing that they have underachieved for so long. There may be other forces at work, mind you (hubris and the circus atmosphere that goes along with USC football generally comes to mind). Any thoughts on why they keep getting their coaching hires wrong, and whether they will get it right this time?

[Papa John]

I think they've run through the Pete Carroll assistant tree, so my fear is that USC will hire someone competent this time around.

[Papa John]

I think they've run through the Pete Carroll assistant tree, so my fear is that USC will hire someone competent this time around.

[Spiny_Norman]

As long as former Trojan football players Mike Garrett, Pat Haden and Lynn Swann were the AD, I had some faith that USC would screw up the coaching hires in the post-Pete Carroll era. But Mike Bohn might actually be a competent athletic director. Still he might be overridden by the legacy Trojan faithful on the Board of Trustees (especially the Chair, Rick Caruso) who seem to have an outdated image of what a USC head coach should look like.

[Spiny_Norman]

As long as former Trojan football players Mike Garrett, Pat Haden and Lynn Swann were the AD, I had some faith that USC would screw up the coaching hires in the post-Pete Carroll era. But Mike Bohn might actually be a competent athletic director. Still he might be overridden by the legacy Trojan faithful on the Board of Trustees (especially the Chair, Rick Caruso) who seem to have an outdated image of what a USC head coach should look like.

[Snorlax94]

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

[Snorlax94]

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

[gailtate]

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

USC has been susceptible to the syndrome that's plaguing Texas. Too many belligerent, cash-swollen boosters with oversize influence on the AD and the top of the university. I suspect that this may have finally run its course,  but I have no real evidence other than anecdotes and remarks of friends in the Cardinal and Gold Club. Chip Kelly's success at UCLA would be a brobdingnagian factor. If he gets the job done in Westwood, there will be colossal pressure across town. My fear is that the Pac12, with the resurrection of the LA schools, will resemble the traditional Big10: tOSU, Michigan, Penn State. Stanford would be the Northwestern of the Pac12, chasing Oregon in the North and rarely catching it, esp. in the NIL era. You're spot-on re Carroll. He was the Pope of Los Angeles.

[gailtate]

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

USC has been susceptible to the syndrome that's plaguing Texas. Too many belligerent, cash-swollen boosters with oversize influence on the AD and the top of the university. I suspect that this may have finally run its course,  but I have no real evidence other than anecdotes and remarks of friends in the Cardinal and Gold Club. Chip Kelly's success at UCLA would be a brobdingnagian factor. If he gets the job done in Westwood, there will be colossal pressure across town. My fear is that the Pac12, with the resurrection of the LA schools, will resemble the traditional Big10: tOSU, Michigan, Penn State. Stanford would be the Northwestern of the Pac12, chasing Oregon in the North and rarely catching it, esp. in the NIL era. You're spot-on re Carroll. He was the Pope of Los Angeles.

[Goose]

IHe says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it.

Absolutely correct. One does also have to mention that he had success. That makes it a lot easier to get guys to listen. A combination of winning and having the right approach to managing a bunch of prima donnas is a pretty rare combination. Carroll didn't just let guys do what they wanted. He did provide discipline and structure. Finding somebody who can do that while still keeping the locker room at U$C happy isn't ever easy. A guy with a big reputation can do it for a while based on his history, but he better win early and often or it won't last. It may be in today's social media world  even that won't be enough.

[Goose]

IHe says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it.

Absolutely correct. One does also have to mention that he had success. That makes it a lot easier to get guys to listen. A combination of winning and having the right approach to managing a bunch of prima donnas is a pretty rare combination. Carroll didn't just let guys do what they wanted. He did provide discipline and structure. Finding somebody who can do that while still keeping the locker room at U$C happy isn't ever easy. A guy with a big reputation can do it for a while based on his history, but he better win early and often or it won't last. It may be in today's social media world  even that won't be enough.

[pcgoode]

You are correct about Carroll.  Let me rephrase - Can we continue to count on USC hiring bad coaches in the post-Carroll era?  This is what I should have asked and was thinking about when I started the thread.  

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

[pcgoode]

You are correct about Carroll.  Let me rephrase - Can we continue to count on USC hiring bad coaches in the post-Carroll era?  This is what I should have asked and was thinking about when I started the thread.  

I disagree with the premises behind this question. 

For one, I think people underappreciate what a fit Pete Carroll was. I think he was somewhat uniquely qualified to handle the opportunities and challenges at SC. Carroll was a cheater at SC but had the insight to draft Sherman and Baldwin, and I've watched interviews with him and one of his strongest traits is that he welcomes and can work with a lot of different types of personalities. He says he'll take loud players, he'll take quiet players, and he develops a culture that welcomes different people. SC may get an "embarrassment of riches" in their recruiting, but every year, it's going to be a challenge dealing with locker room full of prima donnas. I think Carroll -- a skilled and flexible people manager -- was a great fit for it. It's possible SC will one day duplicate it, but for any given hire, it's unlikely. It's not that Stanford got "lucky" with their previous coaches, it's just that it's rare when a program happens upon exactly the right coach at the right place and time.

The second premise I disagree with is that, as it's written it sounds as if Stanford is somehow "lucky" to beat SC most of the time, and it's only due to some kind of administrative "mis-steps" that it happens. To Shaw's point in his weekly statements, Stanford is a great program and has been for over a decade. Get over the past. As Shaw also pointed out, Stanford has a winning record in the past decade against almost all the teams in the Pac-12 (in citing examples, I believe he missed Utah).

I feel like even fans here bash the Pac-12, but I think people really underestimate the conference and unjustifiably bad-mouth it. People probably thought Ed Orgeron was another one of those terrible SC hires, and then he goes off to LSU and wins a national championship. People claimed the Pac-12 had inferior coaching talent but it seems to me that Alabama can't score points unless it has a Sarkisian or Kiffin on its staff. And Stanford beat all those coaches.

[martyup]

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink.  

So, I don't think we should worry about USC hiring a good coach and turning the program around.  USC is where good coaches go to get screwed over and fired.

[martyup]

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink.  

So, I don't think we should worry about USC hiring a good coach and turning the program around.  USC is where good coaches go to get screwed over and fired.

[pcgoode]

I agree it is a circus as per my initial post.

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink.  

So, I don't think we should worry about USC hiring a good coach and turning the program around.  USC is where good coaches go to get screwed over and fired.

[pcgoode]

I agree it is a circus as per my initial post.

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink.  

So, I don't think we should worry about USC hiring a good coach and turning the program around.  USC is where good coaches go to get screwed over and fired.

[CTcard]

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink. 

Coaches are pretty much only judged by their win/loss record, perhaps with an adjustment factor as to how tough it seems to be to win at a particular place.

I think that the SC job is best characterized as a very difficult place to win at a level that even comes close to satisfying the fans, but for just the right kind of guy who catches the right breaks, it is a place one can win really big (see Carroll).

Copying from another thread, below are the SC coaches over the past 40 years. Helton had the best record outside of Carroll and a sort of incomplete from Orgeron. Odds look pretty good that whomever they hire, they'll continue to win about 70% of their games and fire this guy in around 4 years or so.

Helton won 66% overall - 73% in conference 
Sarkisian won 66% overall - 58% in conference
Orgeron won 75% overall - 86% in conference
Kiffin won 65% overall - 58% in conference
Carrol won 84% overall - 82% in conference*
Hackett won 51% overall - 42% in conference
Robinson2 won 63% overall - 64% in conference
Smith won 63% overall - 72% in conference
Tollner won 56% overall - 68% in conference

*Carroll's numbers include his vacated wins.


p.s. I miss Paul Cant Hackett.

[CTcard]

The question assumes that USC has hired bad coaches.  I'm not sure that is true, unless a coach is only judged by his win/loss record.  I think, as others have pointed out, that the atmosphere surrounding USC football has created a situation that makes it very difficult to be a successful head coach.  Sure Pete was able to do it, but many others have failed.  I don't think that Helton, Sarkisian, Ogreron, or Kiffen were bad coaches.  Three out of those four have landed head coaching positions since leaving USC.  I'll bet Sarkisian would tell you that the job was so bad that it drove him to drink. 

Coaches are pretty much only judged by their win/loss record, perhaps with an adjustment factor as to how tough it seems to be to win at a particular place.

I think that the SC job is best characterized as a very difficult place to win at a level that even comes close to satisfying the fans, but for just the right kind of guy who catches the right breaks, it is a place one can win really big (see Carroll).

Copying from another thread, below are the SC coaches over the past 40 years. Helton had the best record outside of Carroll and a sort of incomplete from Orgeron. Odds look pretty good that whomever they hire, they'll continue to win about 70% of their games and fire this guy in around 4 years or so.

Helton won 66% overall - 73% in conference 
Sarkisian won 66% overall - 58% in conference
Orgeron won 75% overall - 86% in conference
Kiffin won 65% overall - 58% in conference
Carrol won 84% overall - 82% in conference*
Hackett won 51% overall - 42% in conference
Robinson2 won 63% overall - 64% in conference
Smith won 63% overall - 72% in conference
Tollner won 56% overall - 68% in conference

*Carroll's numbers include his vacated wins.


p.s. I miss Paul Cant Hackett.

[BostonCard]

I'd settle for another Kiffin or Sarkisian.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'd settle for another Kiffin or Sarkisian.

BC

[baycommuter]

Kiffin and Orgeron had one hand tied behind their backs with 75 scholarships instead of 85. They were running out of players at position groups when there were injuries like we did in 2019 even without sanctions.

[baycommuter]

Kiffin and Orgeron had one hand tied behind their backs with 75 scholarships instead of 85. They were running out of players at position groups when there were injuries like we did in 2019 even without sanctions.