Pete Carroll Blues

tallaghtoutlaws

frostie500 wrote: »

Kiffin was punished by the SEC for repeated violations. Admittedly most of these would be referred to as minor transgressions-referring to players by name in interviews prior to their signing, getting signed letters of intent faxed in from other recruits by fax machines other than their high schools, the Urban Meyer gaff where he didn’t know the rules of recruiting players on other college campuses. The NCAA has began investigation into the recruiting practices of the Vols during Kiffins tenure and his use of hostesses to influence players. This is probably as a result of the University of Washington (I think) and the rape case of recruits and hostesses a few years ago. I’m sure these things do happen with every coach but I feel that it’s foolish of the USC administrators to put themselves into a position whereby they might be seen as not trying to clear up their act. If this hiring was made at any other time I wouldn’t have an issue with it, but with everything going on at SC and the NCAA now I think they should have hired from outside of Pete Carolls coaching tree and brought in a head coach without the issues that Kiffin has had with recruiting and could keep a relatively low profile

The SEC sanctioned them for minor violations of league rules. The NCAA investigated but never went any further and never officially contacted Kiffin or Tennessee.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4737332

I don’t like that Kiffin left UT so soon but I do understand leaving for your dream job etc.

The players were already on campus in the locker room and therefore they will need to obtain permission from the NCAA to transfer to another program. They won’t be punished by having to sit out a year like other transfers because they were early enrollers and haven’t started class but Ed Oregon was calling from this UT phone to steal players from his former program. This is one of the unwritten rules that coaches do adhere to. Players call their recruiter after he leaves a team and look to transfer, that’s fine and accepted but a coach looking to poach talent. Again it’s not illegal but it’s not generally accepted by the coaching fraternity.

Wrong. Only if they attend class do they have to get special permission. Two recruits took part in bowl preparation meaning they will have to get permission. A couple of others attended the college but have yet to set foot in class and they don't have to get any permission as they have not committed to the college or the athletics program by A not setting foot in class and B signing day is next month for Athletics. The others haven't gone near the college until signing day.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/01/13/kiffin.usc.tennessee/index.html

It is as you say a dog eat dog world and in all likelihood they will take some other teams head coach or head coach in waiting-Will Muschamp is the favourite so far. Kiffin will be able to bring in a top recruiting class consistently and recruiting in So Cal is a lot easier than in East Tennessee, it’s easy to understand why he left for SC but I do think that the hiring wasn’t in the best interest of SC with everything else ongoing, as I said if it was at any other time when the college wasn’t getting fresh allegations seemingly every few days I'd view it as a good hiring with a coach that has the potential to be a very good hiring

But do you not see others points? Obviously USC disagree with you and everyone who doesn't think it was a good idea. The simple fact the NCAA never charged Kiffin the SEC did for minor violations. So as far as USC are concerned they must feel he didn't do anything wrong and Im sure they feel he will do the job for them because why else would they hire him.

What it boils down to only time will tell but to shoot Kiffin down before he even starts the job is insane. He could turn out to be USCs best coach ever or he could fail miserably none of us know the answer to either and wont until he actually does something in SC.

tallaghtoutlaws

frostie500 wrote: »

Fair enough if you think that way but when the NCAA sanctions for Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo and all the other violations that this school has done over the last ten years it wont be a molehill. When scholerships are lost, wins taken away and past championship seasons nullified(not beyond the realms of possilities because the NCAA has to come down hard otherwise every school will act like USC has for years) tell me if you still think that its a molehill to bring in a man at the heart of past transgressions and who the NCAA has already targetted as head coach with questionable recruiting practices.

Recruiting wouldnt be hurt by another hiring, this is SC. Players want to play they and yeah this class may lose a few guys but over a few years they would be fine. By bringing in a top line, proven college coach they wouldnt be hurt long term in recruiting or on the field of play

What has previous mistakes by SC got to do with Kiffin though? You seem to be lumping them all into the same argument. What Kiffin did was never punished by the NCAA again for the 3rd time.

It seems your problem is both Kiffin and the USC Athletics dept. So in your eyes it seems both are wrong. Im now failing to see what you are saying. Because on one hand you are blaming USC and the other Kiffin. Is there any more point of any of us debating this with you? Considering this:

A: You don't Like Kiffin leaving the Vols

B: You are using the faults of USC atheltic dept in previous years and throwing the burdon on top of Kiffin

C: You have a problem with both USC and Kiffin.

Whether Kiffin or a squeaky clean coach goes in there USC wont escape the NCAA over Bush and Mays so how is that Kiffins fault?

frostie500

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Wrong. Only if they attend class do they have to get special permission. Two recruits took part in bowl preparation meaning they will have to get permission. A couple of others attended the college but have yet to set foot in class and they don't have to get any permission as they have not committed to the college or the athletics program by A not setting foot in class and B signing day is next month for Athletics. The others haven't gone near the college until signing day.

Fair enough I'm wrong on that one but I do stand by the statement in saying that by activily trying to get recruits to change from one college to another is not ethically correct. Its fine if the players decide by their own views to change schools after a coaching change but to activally recruit is wrong

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But do you not see others points? Obviously USC disagree with you and everyone who doesn't think it was a good idea. The simple fact the NCAA never charged Kiffin the SEC did for minor violations. So as far as USC are concerned they must feel he didn't do anything wrong and Im sure they feel he will do the job for them because why else would they hire him.

What it boils down to only time will tell but to shoot Kiffin down before he even starts the job is insane. He could turn out to be USCs best coach ever or he could fail miserably none of us know the answer to either and wont until he actually does something in SC.

When did I say that Kiffin would fail? I dont think that I was out of line to say that a man with a poor head coaching record is not a top line coach. He has potential to be great but thats very different to actually being great. What has Kiffin achieved as a head coach? He finished 7-6 with the Vols last year and was 5-15 with the Raiders.
USC is one of the premier jobs in college football and they could have gone after pretty much any coach in the country. Right now how many schools can say that? USC, Florida, Texas, LSU and probably Oaklahoma. What's wrong in saying that they took a coach with potential instead of getting a proven winner?
As far as not seeing other points. I think over the time I've posted here most people would say that I'm pretty willing to admit when I'm wrong but that I do generally have pretty reasoned arguments on the sport. I do see how Kiffin getting the job could be good for SC but I do think that when all things are considered that its not a knockout hire that most people seem to think it is

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

A: You don't Like Kiffin leaving the Vols

Your'e right I dont like to see a coach leave a team that gave him a chance to rebuild his career after everything that went on at Oakland especially after only one year. Do you not see an issue of a coach leaving so soon? But as I said also I understand him leaving for his dream job and for one of the biggest jobs in the sport.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

B: You are using the faults of USC atheltic dept in previous years and throwing the burdon on top of Kiffin

Kiffin was a recruiting coordinator with SC during quite a long period of the issues that USC now finds themselves involved in so I wouldnt say that I'm placing the burden of USC's past transgressions on him, rather that by being part of the Pete Caroll era he should be looked upon as a participant of the issues that have occured at SC over the past ten years. Why should I not view it that he was involved with some of the issues involving SC when he was there?

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

C: You have a problem with both USC and Kiffin.

I dont have an issue with either of these, as I said it has the potential to be a great hire. I do however think that the timing of this hire is poor when you consider the NCAA investigation into violations is coming to a close and Kiffin was involved with many years of those issues as well as his own issues as a recruiter.
I think SC should have gone for someone fresh, a college like SC can as I said hire nearly anyone. It is a very attractive proposition to any coach why then do you hire a man that was involved in what will be a watershed case against the college with mass implications on the entire foundation of college sports.

tallaghtoutlaws

Im going to bow out on this discussion as I feel there is two sides and both opinions will never be swayed but I will leave you with this article. To me sums up Kiffin, the Vols and College Football:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/325437-as-crazy-as-it-seems-lane-kiffin-is-not-really-to-blame

All right, I have had my fun at Tennessee fans who who defended Lane Kiffin for behavior against other SEC schools that they would never tolerate if it was Nick Saban, Urban Meyer or someone else doing it to them.

Now time to get serious: what happened really wasn't Kiffin's fault. LOTS of other coaches would have done the same thing had they been put in Kiffin's position. It was not a failure of Kiffin to react in an entirely logical manner to the position that he was placed in, but a failure of Tennessee's administrators in putting Kiffin in that situation to begin with.

I say this because of the term "opportunist." It has a negative connotation to it, but the term really means someone what it says—someone who creates opportunities for himself and takes advantage of them. I don't think that we should be shocked by the fact that succeeding in big time sports inherently requires being an opportunist.

If a guy isn't an opportunist, he won't ever become a big time head coach because he will never even get the chance to become one in the first place. So, the USC opportunity came and Kiffin took it.

So, what's the problem? Even though Tennessee was indeed going to find an opportunist, their challenge was to find someone who would have realized that it was in his best long term career interests to remain with the Volunteers until he had actually accomplished something there.

Or they could have found someone for whom the University of Tennessee was the top of the mountain (rocky top as it were!) instead of a stepping stone. There were plenty of guys out there who fit one or both descriptions, and Tennessee spurned them.

Why? Because the college football culture today is all about the big splash. It is about bold hires that get people talking, puts the university in the headlines, and causes boosters and alumni to open up their wallets. That is the short term goal. The intermediate goal: a national title in four years or less.

When that is accomplished, everyone talks about what genius the athletics director or university president was for making the hire. When that happens, the president or AD, an opportunist himself or herself, moves onto a better job.

The last coach that any president or athletics director would want to hire right now is a Bo Schembechler, Tom Osborne or Jim Tressel: solid hires who gets it done year after year but in a boring, ho-hum fashion. It's not about the product anymore, it is about the presentation.

The person who best identified this new mindset was Barbara Hedges, former University of Washington president. She got rid of Jim Lambright (rustic, dumpy, aging, and overweight, a stereotypical coach for the south or midwest) despite him being a qualified enough fellow and longtime loyal Husky who effectively guided the program through NCAA sanctions that included scholarship reductions and hired Rick Neuheisel.

Why? Because Neuheisel better fit the elite, hip urban university image that Hedges wanted to project for the school, and because it would help fundraising and increase publicity. And of course, improving Washington's reputation and image as president would help Hedges attain her own goal, which was to become president of a more prestigious university down the line!

And don't blame Hedges. Colorado did the same in passing up several very qualified longterm assistants to hire Neuheisel in the first place. Colorado was trying to do their best to move away from the image that Bill McCartney had built on and off the field, and the laid back west coast guy in his early 30s with the exciting offense was the way to go!

Now this has spread from programs whose knowledge of and commitment to the college game were questionable in the first place to the entire game. It explains why the hires across the board keep getting younger and younger, and also this general movement towards not only offensive football, but gimmick schemes on offense at that.

In times past, the major programs wouldn't go with gimmick offense guys because of the feeling that down the road opponents would figure them out. Now, no one cares about whether what this coach is doing will be effective in 14 years because the emphasis is finding a guy who can win it all in four (or less).

So if the college scene is rewarding candidates barely in their 30s with no proven track records and fly by night schemes with big time jobs, how can we act surprised when these guys act like this? If colleges are making boom or bust hires instead of seeking to maintain "steady as she goes" success, why do we act surprised when things go bust?

How we forget that two of the best hires of the decade...Nick Saban at LSU and Pete Carroll at USC, were treated with contempt and derision. Neither guy was a hot property, considered a fast riser. Yet both Carroll and Saban were mature guys with years of experience, including years in the NFL and as head coaches, and you see the result.

Perhaps the third best recent hire, Mack Brown of Texas: more of the same...a guy who had years of experience at a head coach at Appalachian State, Tulane, and North Carolina.

And the worst part is that these people STILL haven't learned. Case in point: two main candidates for the Tennessee job are now Will Muschamp (age 38) and Kirby Smart (age 34). Instead of reacting to this Kiffin mess with the obvious idea that Tennessee needs stability, someone who will build a program in the short and immediate term, everyone says that the way to recover from the attempt to make a big splash that failed is to make another big splash to get everybody excited and hope that it succeeds. But are Smart and Muschamp any more qualified, any more MATURE than Kiffin? Nobody knows.

And what keeps Smart from going from Tennessee to his alma mater Georgia if that job opens up in a couple of years, which everyone knows is a possibility? Nothing, really. And what keeps Muschamp from accepting a pile of that Texas oil money to return to Austin if Mack Brown runs the table in 2010 or 2011 and steps down? Truthfully, not a thing.

Neither Muschamp or Smart have any ties to Tennessee that would keep them there, have more invested in other institutions, and both are at the stage of their careers where they can fail and recover. Lane Kiffin knows that if he flames out at USC, he can simply go take another coordinator job in college or the NFL and be right back in a few years just like Rick Neuheisel did, and Smart and Muschamp know the same.

That's why swooning over whoever the media says is the best candidate (and it usually is for the people who are only interested in writing stories that interest them) is the last thing that these presidents and ADs of major programs should be doing. They should be looking for a guy who is at the point in his career where he has to make that situation work, and also a guy who is thinking less about having fun trying something new and more into building something great.

As a general rule, that is something that comes with age. How many 35 year olds are taking jobs thinking that they will stay on them for the next 35 years?

This is not to say that Tennessee should have brought back David Cutcliffe, whose recruiting failures—and refusal to fix them—at Ole Miss were a real concern, as were the health problems that caused him to leave the Notre Dame coordinator job. (Duke, a job where he isn't expected to bring in top classes and has no pressure to win titles is perfect for a guy at the stage of his career.)

But promoting John Chavis? Why not? Hiring Charlie Strong? Again, why not? Getting Tommy Tuberville? Again, what's the problem? All of those guys had their issues, but the point is that had they been hired, they would still be Tennessee's coach right now, and more important would have been far more likely to succeed in the long term than a guy promising a quick fix with top recruiting classes and the west coast offense.

Tennessee's next hire should be a good, solid, strong, boring guy who will do nothing but effectively represent the program and win football games. My suggestion? Jim Grobe of Wake Forest. If the guy could take Wake Forest to the Orange Bowl, he can take a big time program to the national title game.

If he can develop his two- and three-star recruits into guys like Aaron Curry into the No. 4 overall NFL draft pick, he can develop the four- and five-star players that he would get at Tennessee. Grobe hasn't gotten a better job yet because he isn't flashy enough, and that is the best evidence that this college football hiring process is absurd, an absurdity that Tennessee contributed to.

Were Tennessee to make a sensible hire of a mature, qualified candidate, that would probably be the best thing to rein in this culture of setting Lane Kiffins and Rick Neuheisels to do exactly what guys placed in positions like that do, which is either fail or run off chasing the first thing that interests them.