Jack, you had a decent post until the Maryland/Rutgers thing. Sorry, that's an absurd comparison. I also find it clever the way you removed Pete Carroll to make a point. Why stop there? Why not remove Howard Jones, John McKay, and John Robinson, too? What's USC's winning percentage then...40%? All you prove, even in your Nebraska speech,…
Jack, you had a decent post until the Maryland/Rutgers thing. Sorry, that's an absurd comparison. I also find it clever the way you removed Pete Carroll to make a point. Why stop there? Why not remove Howard Jones, John McKay, and John Robinson, too? What's USC's winning percentage then...40%? All you prove, even in your Nebraska speech, is coaching in CFB is THE most important factor in success. Big shock! Nebraska's downfall was Tom Osborne retired, plain and simple. Alabama's resurgence was Nick Saban was hired, etc., etc. That's why programs go through cycles. They go through stretches of poor hires, or they can't keep the good ones they do hire. Or, they pour enormous sums of money into their program (Oklahoma St, Oregon, eg) to gain respectability. USC will be fine--they are not Nebraska. Since 2000, they have won 71% of their games. Not totally sure but it puts them something like top 10-12 nationally. That covers a period with great to horrible coaching hires.
Oh, and you are right about the 10th to 12th nationally in win percentage over the last 20 years. That is all due to Pete Carroll, the one proven hire in 40 years.
If you carve out his performance over the last 20 years, I think USC ranks around 30th.
I am frankly struggling to come up with a program, any program, who hires 8 coaches in 40 years and 7 of them are just that bad.
We'll find out if they are Nebraska or not. Funny thing, though. Nebraska did not fall off a cliff when Osborne retired. They had several very good seasons near the top of the Big 12.
They fell off the cliff when they joined the Big 10.
So now let's get to your critical point that coaching in CFB it THE most important factor in success.
Let's look at USC though that lense.
Well, it's been 40 years since John Robinson's initial retirement from USC and USC has shown almost no ability to hire quality coaches at the level of programs like Ohio State or Michigan.
In that 40 year era, USC has hired 9 coaches.
We don't know about Riley long term, but we do know about 7 of the 8 other hires and if they portend USC's knack for hiring coaches to fix problems, good luck on that one.
USC is pretty well screwed using your own standards if they continue to bat 12.5%.
Here's the USC Honor Roll:
Ted Tollner 56% win percentage
John Robinson, 2nd hire, 63% win percentage and declining when fired
Larry Smith looked good at first, but slid to 63% and declining when fired
Paul Hackett 51%
Pete Carroll - amazing win percentage but due to all the issues with the NCAA, I wasn't sure which games to include or not include. Funny thing about Pete Carroll. He was about the 9th choice and alumni were outraged. Odd how these things work out.
Lane Kiffin 62% and declining when fired
Sark 66% sad short tenure of a good man.
Clay Helton 67% and declining when fired
Riley - 78%
So, in 40 years, USC's brain trust hired 9 coaches. 8 of them were their first choice. One was a proven success over the long haul and he frankly was viewed as a stupid mistake by the alumni when initially hired.
7 coaches that were USC's first choice were train wrecks.
We'll find out about # 8 soon enough.
If you are counting on USC's long term nack for spotting and hiring talented coaches, USC is in bigger trouble than I thought.
All you're proving to this board now, Jack, is your bias. First, if you look at all the active coaches today, the average winning % is barely over 50. A 60% puts you in the top 50! The average of all those past USC "train wrecks" you mentioned? 62%. Secondly, overall winning % is a very limited metric for a coach. Larry Smith, e.g., won 3 conference titles, was a #1 ranked team, and one win from a national championship. His 63% w.p. may look average but there were also elite seasons for him. All those coaches (not Hackett) were good hires on paper, but not all met the high expectations. All kept coaching beyond USC (Sarkisian and Kiffin are still HC's at top programs). Thirdly, Jack, you are conveniently omitting a mention of the draconian (and grossly unfair) sanctions prior to Kiffin's hire. Those penalties were meant to destroy football at USC. Still, they maintain the 6-7 th best overall winning percentage in CFB history. Yes, guys like Pete Carroll were outliers, but name me ONE CFB TEAM whose all-time % is higher than average that doesn't have one! Don't try--you can’t. Lastly, Jack, the point of all this is USC has proven that with the right hire, they can win a Natty. They've done it 11 times. Besides WA, no one else in Pac-12 can say that. In fact, only 3 in the Big10 can say it. They'll be just fine there.
And I understand your point about the sanctions. It doesn't change the end result and frankly USC hasn't been that good since the impact of the sanctions wore off.
With all due respect, my knowledge of USC football is limited and I was not nearly as wounded as the USC faithful by those sanctions (which were uncalled for, by all accounts).
Here is the strange thing.
USC's defense was slipping before those sanctions took effect and 2009, pre- sanctions, was an "off year" for Pete Carroll.
During the 3 years of the sanctions, USC won 25 games, but then won 48 in the 5 years immediately following the sanctions, a period including their only conference title in the last 15 years.
In the last 5 years, USC actually regressed, winning only 33 games.
So you, a clear "Yoda" of USC football lore, explain to me, a mere Duck, when the impact of the sanctions actually took effect and wore off?
Jack, you are a kind and humble Duck, and a student of the game. My memories no longer include the specifics but rather the impact on the program. It was truly the dark period in Troy. We were helpless against the Evil Empire spearheaded by Mark Emmert. Our athletic leader, Mike Garrett resisted fiercely which gave us a modicum of hope, but eventually he surrendered. Many thought this was at the urging of our Supreme Leader, Dr. Max Nikias. This led to Pat Haden, the famed Trojan QB and Rhodes scholar as well as esteemed attorney taking the reins of the athletic department to steer a course that might result in the Evil Empire having mercy on us. Haden was supposed to play the “good cop” to Garrett’s “bad cop.” Cut to the chase…they didn’t. As stated, my memory as to specifics no longer serves me well. However, there was one road game in the PAC where my Trojans were under 50 scholarship players on the team flight. To go from 85 schollie players to 55…take away the players on the injured list left us terribly undermanned. Walk-ons were very hard to come by as the tuition at SC is so high. That led to the coaching staff banning physical practices for fear of injury to our already depleted corp. Jack…take your 2022 Ducks’ roster and take away 30 of those scholarship players. The impact on the survivors is physically and psychologically devastating. As concerns the fan base, our reaction turned from red hot anger to horror at the dumpster fire created by the ncaa. Football which traditionally was a source of great pride was now in total disarray. Recruiting came to a grinding halt. And even when the sanctions were up the football program and its fan base went into a collective depression. Once the recruiting spicket was turned off, it was difficult getting it turned back on. Recruits from the fertile rich SoCal geographic area were leaving in droves for the SEC and B10. It was in this depressed mode that Clay Helton took the reins. Clay was sort of like the cherry on top of the hideous sundae. Jack, your question to me was very legitimate and in full disclosure I must say that I Can’t bring myself to research it. I just can tell you about the imprinted negative impact it had on Trojan football and the Trojan family. Our pride and joy was dragged through the mud. What we once looked forward to on Saturdays was in effect taken away. Then Lincoln Riley came onto the scene…no sanctions…and much hope for the future. Hopefully, the silver lining of the disastrous Cotton Bowl is that LR must finally address is aversion to developing a strong defense. The fan base requires national success and the powers that be at Troy supposedly are lined up to support that mission. I personally will so miss the PAC. I started with the PAC-8 and frankly can’t imagine football life without it. My wish would be for the Ducks and Huskies to get invites to the B10. I wish we could stay but this move is what they call progress in 2024. Nothing but well wishes to our NW brethren. You were/are incredibly worthy opponents. No individual team can achieve greatness without passionate, worthy opponents. Fight on!
Thank you Jack. Your comments are much appreciated. Yeah..the sanctions did not fit the crime. Trojan football was always such an enjoyable part of my life even in some of the down periods. But this was in fact a crippling of the institution. The team was still alive but on life support. No academic scandal, no student athlete taking money/favors from boosters. None of the stuff we generally look for. I don’t want to go into specifics as my purpose is simply to respond to you and not give the wolves something to howl about. In previous eras when June would roll around I’d think “Wow…3 more months to go before Trojan football. I’m sure Duck fans look forward to the season, the tailgating, the friends etc. For a number of seasons that got stripped away. Yeah, I know these are problems for a First World Nation. Life is much worse elsewhere. But talking to many of my alum buddies, they were experiencing the same sort of “loss”. And the punishment definitely did not fit the crime. This stuff generally never is talked about. We get involved in the stats and such but don’t talk about the feelings and emotions of a fanbase. Again, I know it is just a game, but in the total scheme it is like taking fishing away from an avid fisherman. You ever talk to an avid marathon runner who had to give up running for 6 months due to an injury? Now we are presumably heading back. We have hit some big speed bumps in Dallas but I think that in the bigger picture will serve to make us stronger. I hope the Ducks can join us in that midwest conference…only because they tell us that it is “progress.” Jury is still out.Btw…me and my SC buddies were all rooting hard for the Ducks in those games against Florida State and Auburn. I guess for two reasons: 1. They were so much fun to watch 2. We support the PAC-12 and want to see it succeed. All the best Jack.
Scott, thank you for the follow up, but I do not think I am being biased.
You said coaching was the ultimate factor that would decide a school's fate.
USC, outside of the Pete Carroll era, in the last 40 years, has generally been a pedestrian program.
I agreed with your basic premise as to why.
Coaching.
Larry Smith is perhaps the best example of all, as you point out.
3 titles, a great run, 19 wins in a row,, almost a national title and then Larry slowly slipped to the mean that has been USC football over a 40 year period, outside of the Pete Carroll era. He won 63% of his games by going 17-17 his last 3 years.
Of the 364 games (not counting games played to a tie and excluding the Pete Carroll era) played following John Robinson's retirement, USC has won 229, or 63%.
Their average finish in the conference in those years - 4th place.
Given that every single coach who participated in those 364 wins was summarily kicked to the curb, (other than Riley of course-I included his wins) I'd say the results of every single one of those coaches is unacceptable to those that hold USC near and dear to their hearts.
This is not bias.
These are irrefutable facts using the single factor set forth by you as the most important.
I don't think above average is bad. Hell, I attended a game where the sparsely populated student section yelled we're number 8. It wasn't fun.
Following the 1982 season, UO has managed to win 322 of its games and USC 315.
Over a 40 year period, I would also describe many of UO's years as pedestrian as well.
The schools have frankly taken different routes getting there, and I think UO has done a better job hiring coaches than USC, but both sets of alumni ought to be both proud of their schools and perhaps a little realistic as well.
Scott and Jack….helluva debate. You both used facts and drew conclusions from the facts. I can assume you had to look it up, which probably took a bit of time. I for one was the recipient of a passionate and fact-filled debate. At no point did either of you resort to ad hominem attacks, which is all too common in our social media. Scott I definitely declare you the “winner”, but I should probably have recused myself as I am a 3 degreed USC Trojan…no brag, just fact (Walter Brennan…The Guns of Will Sonnett).
Having been a bonafide Trojan since 1967, I can attest to two things. 1. “It is the coaching stupid.” 2 Trojan Family is intent on getting their team back to the perennial blue blood power it used to be. That means money folks…big money. If my sources are correct, that is the whole point of going to the B10…$$$$. I myself am not a big money person. But if I have learned one thing about big money people, it is that they are realistic and pragmatic. They do not want to waste their money by getting into something without realizing what it will take to be successful. It has nothing to do with USC people thinking they are better than anyone else. That is the trope used by those who seem offended by USC’s pursuit of football excellence. Are you offended by UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and Gonzaga’s pursuit of basketball excellence? Heck…Don’t Oregon State and Vanderbilt vigorously pursue baseball excellence. To the 10 fanbases we are leaving in 2024, we really enjoyed being with you. (Wish I was Southern and could legitimately say “y’all). From an insider’s perspective, we never spent time degrading our PAC opponents. Sure we got a lot of verbal sparring and gave it back, but it was mostly good-natured. We loved our weekends at your beautiful campuses. We tailgated and made some nice PAC acquaintances. We loved the culture that was the PAC-12…compete vigorously as winning is important but there is more to life than football. Not really sure how that is different in B10, sure glad we are not going to SEC where football is life.
Perhaps this discussion will serve to get us started on the 2023 PAC-12 football season (After sufficient time to rest). Got to be honest…the Tulane game took a lot out of me. At any rate…great debate Scott and Jack. I look forward to another great season in the PAC-12.
Jack, you had a decent post until the Maryland/Rutgers thing. Sorry, that's an absurd comparison. I also find it clever the way you removed Pete Carroll to make a point. Why stop there? Why not remove Howard Jones, John McKay, and John Robinson, too? What's USC's winning percentage then...40%? All you prove, even in your Nebraska speech, is coaching in CFB is THE most important factor in success. Big shock! Nebraska's downfall was Tom Osborne retired, plain and simple. Alabama's resurgence was Nick Saban was hired, etc., etc. That's why programs go through cycles. They go through stretches of poor hires, or they can't keep the good ones they do hire. Or, they pour enormous sums of money into their program (Oklahoma St, Oregon, eg) to gain respectability. USC will be fine--they are not Nebraska. Since 2000, they have won 71% of their games. Not totally sure but it puts them something like top 10-12 nationally. That covers a period with great to horrible coaching hires.
Oh, and you are right about the 10th to 12th nationally in win percentage over the last 20 years. That is all due to Pete Carroll, the one proven hire in 40 years.
If you carve out his performance over the last 20 years, I think USC ranks around 30th.
I am frankly struggling to come up with a program, any program, who hires 8 coaches in 40 years and 7 of them are just that bad.
We'll find out if they are Nebraska or not. Funny thing, though. Nebraska did not fall off a cliff when Osborne retired. They had several very good seasons near the top of the Big 12.
They fell off the cliff when they joined the Big 10.
So now let's get to your critical point that coaching in CFB it THE most important factor in success.
Let's look at USC though that lense.
Well, it's been 40 years since John Robinson's initial retirement from USC and USC has shown almost no ability to hire quality coaches at the level of programs like Ohio State or Michigan.
In that 40 year era, USC has hired 9 coaches.
We don't know about Riley long term, but we do know about 7 of the 8 other hires and if they portend USC's knack for hiring coaches to fix problems, good luck on that one.
USC is pretty well screwed using your own standards if they continue to bat 12.5%.
Here's the USC Honor Roll:
Ted Tollner 56% win percentage
John Robinson, 2nd hire, 63% win percentage and declining when fired
Larry Smith looked good at first, but slid to 63% and declining when fired
Paul Hackett 51%
Pete Carroll - amazing win percentage but due to all the issues with the NCAA, I wasn't sure which games to include or not include. Funny thing about Pete Carroll. He was about the 9th choice and alumni were outraged. Odd how these things work out.
Lane Kiffin 62% and declining when fired
Sark 66% sad short tenure of a good man.
Clay Helton 67% and declining when fired
Riley - 78%
So, in 40 years, USC's brain trust hired 9 coaches. 8 of them were their first choice. One was a proven success over the long haul and he frankly was viewed as a stupid mistake by the alumni when initially hired.
7 coaches that were USC's first choice were train wrecks.
We'll find out about # 8 soon enough.
If you are counting on USC's long term nack for spotting and hiring talented coaches, USC is in bigger trouble than I thought.
All you're proving to this board now, Jack, is your bias. First, if you look at all the active coaches today, the average winning % is barely over 50. A 60% puts you in the top 50! The average of all those past USC "train wrecks" you mentioned? 62%. Secondly, overall winning % is a very limited metric for a coach. Larry Smith, e.g., won 3 conference titles, was a #1 ranked team, and one win from a national championship. His 63% w.p. may look average but there were also elite seasons for him. All those coaches (not Hackett) were good hires on paper, but not all met the high expectations. All kept coaching beyond USC (Sarkisian and Kiffin are still HC's at top programs). Thirdly, Jack, you are conveniently omitting a mention of the draconian (and grossly unfair) sanctions prior to Kiffin's hire. Those penalties were meant to destroy football at USC. Still, they maintain the 6-7 th best overall winning percentage in CFB history. Yes, guys like Pete Carroll were outliers, but name me ONE CFB TEAM whose all-time % is higher than average that doesn't have one! Don't try--you can’t. Lastly, Jack, the point of all this is USC has proven that with the right hire, they can win a Natty. They've done it 11 times. Besides WA, no one else in Pac-12 can say that. In fact, only 3 in the Big10 can say it. They'll be just fine there.
And I understand your point about the sanctions. It doesn't change the end result and frankly USC hasn't been that good since the impact of the sanctions wore off.
Thank you for such a friendly debate.
I'm hungry.
Have a good evening.
Begs the issue, when did the impact of the sanctions actually wear off?
I'd love to hear your take on the sanctions.
With all due respect, my knowledge of USC football is limited and I was not nearly as wounded as the USC faithful by those sanctions (which were uncalled for, by all accounts).
Here is the strange thing.
USC's defense was slipping before those sanctions took effect and 2009, pre- sanctions, was an "off year" for Pete Carroll.
During the 3 years of the sanctions, USC won 25 games, but then won 48 in the 5 years immediately following the sanctions, a period including their only conference title in the last 15 years.
In the last 5 years, USC actually regressed, winning only 33 games.
So you, a clear "Yoda" of USC football lore, explain to me, a mere Duck, when the impact of the sanctions actually took effect and wore off?
Jack, you are a kind and humble Duck, and a student of the game. My memories no longer include the specifics but rather the impact on the program. It was truly the dark period in Troy. We were helpless against the Evil Empire spearheaded by Mark Emmert. Our athletic leader, Mike Garrett resisted fiercely which gave us a modicum of hope, but eventually he surrendered. Many thought this was at the urging of our Supreme Leader, Dr. Max Nikias. This led to Pat Haden, the famed Trojan QB and Rhodes scholar as well as esteemed attorney taking the reins of the athletic department to steer a course that might result in the Evil Empire having mercy on us. Haden was supposed to play the “good cop” to Garrett’s “bad cop.” Cut to the chase…they didn’t. As stated, my memory as to specifics no longer serves me well. However, there was one road game in the PAC where my Trojans were under 50 scholarship players on the team flight. To go from 85 schollie players to 55…take away the players on the injured list left us terribly undermanned. Walk-ons were very hard to come by as the tuition at SC is so high. That led to the coaching staff banning physical practices for fear of injury to our already depleted corp. Jack…take your 2022 Ducks’ roster and take away 30 of those scholarship players. The impact on the survivors is physically and psychologically devastating. As concerns the fan base, our reaction turned from red hot anger to horror at the dumpster fire created by the ncaa. Football which traditionally was a source of great pride was now in total disarray. Recruiting came to a grinding halt. And even when the sanctions were up the football program and its fan base went into a collective depression. Once the recruiting spicket was turned off, it was difficult getting it turned back on. Recruits from the fertile rich SoCal geographic area were leaving in droves for the SEC and B10. It was in this depressed mode that Clay Helton took the reins. Clay was sort of like the cherry on top of the hideous sundae. Jack, your question to me was very legitimate and in full disclosure I must say that I Can’t bring myself to research it. I just can tell you about the imprinted negative impact it had on Trojan football and the Trojan family. Our pride and joy was dragged through the mud. What we once looked forward to on Saturdays was in effect taken away. Then Lincoln Riley came onto the scene…no sanctions…and much hope for the future. Hopefully, the silver lining of the disastrous Cotton Bowl is that LR must finally address is aversion to developing a strong defense. The fan base requires national success and the powers that be at Troy supposedly are lined up to support that mission. I personally will so miss the PAC. I started with the PAC-8 and frankly can’t imagine football life without it. My wish would be for the Ducks and Huskies to get invites to the B10. I wish we could stay but this move is what they call progress in 2024. Nothing but well wishes to our NW brethren. You were/are incredibly worthy opponents. No individual team can achieve greatness without passionate, worthy opponents. Fight on!
I enjoyed reading your post. I for one always thought USC was over sanctioned for something that had nothing to do with coaching staff.
Good luck in the future.
Thank you Jack. Your comments are much appreciated. Yeah..the sanctions did not fit the crime. Trojan football was always such an enjoyable part of my life even in some of the down periods. But this was in fact a crippling of the institution. The team was still alive but on life support. No academic scandal, no student athlete taking money/favors from boosters. None of the stuff we generally look for. I don’t want to go into specifics as my purpose is simply to respond to you and not give the wolves something to howl about. In previous eras when June would roll around I’d think “Wow…3 more months to go before Trojan football. I’m sure Duck fans look forward to the season, the tailgating, the friends etc. For a number of seasons that got stripped away. Yeah, I know these are problems for a First World Nation. Life is much worse elsewhere. But talking to many of my alum buddies, they were experiencing the same sort of “loss”. And the punishment definitely did not fit the crime. This stuff generally never is talked about. We get involved in the stats and such but don’t talk about the feelings and emotions of a fanbase. Again, I know it is just a game, but in the total scheme it is like taking fishing away from an avid fisherman. You ever talk to an avid marathon runner who had to give up running for 6 months due to an injury? Now we are presumably heading back. We have hit some big speed bumps in Dallas but I think that in the bigger picture will serve to make us stronger. I hope the Ducks can join us in that midwest conference…only because they tell us that it is “progress.” Jury is still out.Btw…me and my SC buddies were all rooting hard for the Ducks in those games against Florida State and Auburn. I guess for two reasons: 1. They were so much fun to watch 2. We support the PAC-12 and want to see it succeed. All the best Jack.
Scott, thank you for the follow up, but I do not think I am being biased.
You said coaching was the ultimate factor that would decide a school's fate.
USC, outside of the Pete Carroll era, in the last 40 years, has generally been a pedestrian program.
I agreed with your basic premise as to why.
Coaching.
Larry Smith is perhaps the best example of all, as you point out.
3 titles, a great run, 19 wins in a row,, almost a national title and then Larry slowly slipped to the mean that has been USC football over a 40 year period, outside of the Pete Carroll era. He won 63% of his games by going 17-17 his last 3 years.
Of the 364 games (not counting games played to a tie and excluding the Pete Carroll era) played following John Robinson's retirement, USC has won 229, or 63%.
Their average finish in the conference in those years - 4th place.
Given that every single coach who participated in those 364 wins was summarily kicked to the curb, (other than Riley of course-I included his wins) I'd say the results of every single one of those coaches is unacceptable to those that hold USC near and dear to their hearts.
This is not bias.
These are irrefutable facts using the single factor set forth by you as the most important.
I don't think above average is bad. Hell, I attended a game where the sparsely populated student section yelled we're number 8. It wasn't fun.
Following the 1982 season, UO has managed to win 322 of its games and USC 315.
Over a 40 year period, I would also describe many of UO's years as pedestrian as well.
The schools have frankly taken different routes getting there, and I think UO has done a better job hiring coaches than USC, but both sets of alumni ought to be both proud of their schools and perhaps a little realistic as well.
Scott and Jack….helluva debate. You both used facts and drew conclusions from the facts. I can assume you had to look it up, which probably took a bit of time. I for one was the recipient of a passionate and fact-filled debate. At no point did either of you resort to ad hominem attacks, which is all too common in our social media. Scott I definitely declare you the “winner”, but I should probably have recused myself as I am a 3 degreed USC Trojan…no brag, just fact (Walter Brennan…The Guns of Will Sonnett).
Having been a bonafide Trojan since 1967, I can attest to two things. 1. “It is the coaching stupid.” 2 Trojan Family is intent on getting their team back to the perennial blue blood power it used to be. That means money folks…big money. If my sources are correct, that is the whole point of going to the B10…$$$$. I myself am not a big money person. But if I have learned one thing about big money people, it is that they are realistic and pragmatic. They do not want to waste their money by getting into something without realizing what it will take to be successful. It has nothing to do with USC people thinking they are better than anyone else. That is the trope used by those who seem offended by USC’s pursuit of football excellence. Are you offended by UCLA, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and Gonzaga’s pursuit of basketball excellence? Heck…Don’t Oregon State and Vanderbilt vigorously pursue baseball excellence. To the 10 fanbases we are leaving in 2024, we really enjoyed being with you. (Wish I was Southern and could legitimately say “y’all). From an insider’s perspective, we never spent time degrading our PAC opponents. Sure we got a lot of verbal sparring and gave it back, but it was mostly good-natured. We loved our weekends at your beautiful campuses. We tailgated and made some nice PAC acquaintances. We loved the culture that was the PAC-12…compete vigorously as winning is important but there is more to life than football. Not really sure how that is different in B10, sure glad we are not going to SEC where football is life.
Perhaps this discussion will serve to get us started on the 2023 PAC-12 football season (After sufficient time to rest). Got to be honest…the Tulane game took a lot out of me. At any rate…great debate Scott and Jack. I look forward to another great season in the PAC-12.