If Not Now, When?
I posted about this on The Sporting Blog so this is going to be a rehash, but since this is the Leno-Conan tiff of college football right now I haven't thought about much else: holy crap in a hat, USC hired Lane Kiffin.
There are a thousand different ways in which that statement can be taken: wow, what a snake. Wow, Al Davis was right. Wow, even Charlie Weis shot down USC. Wow, I love hot dogs. In all ways the hire makes no sense, and the rest of the blogosphere is busily examining all of these angles plus dongs on a rock. Last night I had the same giddy reaction that the rest of the universe did. USC hired a guy who rose through the ranks thanks to nepotism and has time and again proven himself an idiot of the highest order. Woo.
Today, though, I'm bothered. That USC had to stoop so low as to grab Kiffin indicates the coming sanctions are harsh, but taking Orgeron and maybe picking off Chow and the thing stuck in my craw indicate that maybe USC is going to get off easy. The thing that is currently stuck in my craw is the thing I had to resort to all caps to properly express over at TSB:
LANE KIFFIN WAS THE OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR AND RECRUITING COORDINATOR WHEN REGGIE BUSH WAS ON THE TAKE AND JOE MCKNIGHT COMMITTED TO USC. USC is hiring one of the guys—possibly the guy—who was most responsible for the NCAA coming down on the program.
Can this be interpreted as anything other than a taunt? USC is going to get penalized in two different sports in February. They've fired one coach for directly paying a runner and lost another because he managed to ignore agents in his locker room. And they bring in Lane Freakin' Kiffin, a guy who
- has racked up seven or eight very public secondary violations in one a year at Tennessee
- is currently under investigation for employing Tennessee undergrads as a sort of USO show from sea to shining sea
- pursued and acquired Bryce Brown when his recruitment and sketchy AAU-style handler became too much for Miami, which I remind you is Miami
…argh… Spock… herecomethe… ALLCAPS
- LANE KIFFIN WAS THE OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR AND RECRUITING COORDINATOR WHEN REGGIE BUSH WAS ON THE TAKE AND JOE MCKNIGHT COMMITTED TO USC.
USC is getting hit with football violations and they have just hired the guy most directly responsible for those violations occurring as their head coach. He is bringing Ed Orgeron and possibly Norm Chow back with him, giving USC more than one coach who had full knowledge of the shenanigans going down in LA and did zero to stop it.
USC has just double-dog-dared the NCAA to do something meaningful. They've thrown away the idea of contrition in favor of defiance. They are saying yes, we have had three separate incidents in two sports in a matter of years, but this is not a lack of institutional control. It is the institution. Insofar as we can, we cheat.
This is the NCAA's Waterloo. If USC does not suffer severe repercussions that make it all but impossible for them to compete on a national level for five years in both major sports, the idea that the rules mean anything is over.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:35 PM ^
Practice time is restricted by the NCAA, but there are so many practice-related activities that don't count toward that limit that I have a hard time believing anything would stick (especially when the logs Rosenberg made so much noise about aren't an NCAA requirement, as I understand it, but something implemented by the athletic department to keep tabs on it themselves). And a few extra hours of practice might get you a slap on the wrist or so but would not rise to the level of playing with ineligible players whose amateur status you knew or should have known was in question.
Any USC fans pointing and laughing at you for Practicegate would be a perfect example of pointing out the proverbial speck in another's eye while ignoring the two-by-four sticking out of their own.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
I know what you mean, and I agree to a certain extent. Our investigation should not lead to sanctions of USC proportions if violations are found, and no USC friends of mine are calling me a hypocrite. But, the NCAA is unpredictable, and there is still an outside shot that there is more to this than just Rosenberg being a giant dolphin-punching douchebag. Until we're out of the woods, I just think it's responsible to keep the USC bashing to a minimum.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
Requiring coaches to sit out a year before taking another job...wouldn't that be considered a restraint of trade?
The NCAA says kids commit to the school. You get a scholarship to go to college. Not to play football. You pay for your scholarship by playing football.
I don't want kids going to five schools in four years. It's bad enough when they do that with those diploma mills in high schools. When you visit a school, you need to look at your coaches. How long have they been there? How long are they likely to stay? How stable a regime has it been? Do you like your position coach? Because that's really who you are going to be dealing with. And if the coach left, would you still like this school?
I don't think it's that hard. If a kid has a problem with that, I'd strongly advise him NOT to go to an SEC school where turnover is pretty high.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
This was my first thought too. The answer to your question is yes, it would be a restraint on trade (which in itself is not prohibited by the Sherman Act).
The real question is whether it would be an unreasonable restraint on trade, and my inclination is that it probably would be.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
"If USC does not suffer severe repercussions that make it all but impossible for them to compete on a national level for five years in both major sports, the idea that the rules mean anything is over."
So so so so so so fucking true. I hate to say it, but if they get off then we have to stop "playing by the rules" in order to win. We have always (or at least since the Fab Five era) tried to play by the rules. If USC gets a slap on the wrist then all bets have to be off, right?
January 13th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
The sanctions are very likely going to be severe. The NCAA gets a lot of crap wrong and on a repeated basis, but when it comes to investigations and infractions like this one with the involvement of sports management compnay agents, holy crap. To me that is what explains the aggressive swashbuckling move and raid by Mike Garrett on Kiffin and Orgeron (and possibly Chow). I don't think it's the wisest move for the reasons stated by Brian, but Garrett is reaching for some semblance of the USC glory years (2001-2006) and went after some key pieces of that for the future. With the add-on of at least 3-4 very highly paid head and asst. coaches, and no bowl games for 5 years, well, it'll be shall we say "interesting".
I could be wrong, but while Norm Chow and Rick Neuheisel obviously don't like each other very much, I'm not at all convinced that Norm Chow is going to be totally gung ho about working underneath a former protege of his, Lane Kiffin.
Chow's brain: "Neuheisel or Kiffin? Neuheisel or Kiffin?" "Finkel and Einhorn", "Einhorn and Finkel".
Aw, God! I actually feel sorry for Norm Chow.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
I'm going to get negged.
Look - the bulk of the NCAA accusations against USC allege that agents had access to Bush and McKnight - that they were essentially paying them, as college studnets, in an attempt to bribe them to be clients when they left school. That doesn't say anything about their recruitment - they were paid by agents, not USC. That doesn't absolve USC - the accusation is that they turned a blind eye. I'm saying it suggests that Kiffin wasn't responsible for their income.
Further, I find it odd that a blog that tirelessly defends RR against all-comers when the rest of internet has decided he's guilty is so willing to write a somewhat disingenuous post assuming violations where none have yet been proven and mis-represents what those violations are. Why "wait for the NCAA to act" on RR and "BLOW THEM UP!!!" for USC?
I really don't care about USC, but this seems reactionary like crazy.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
You forget one thing: the accusation is also out there that Tim Floyd personally paid $1000 to an O.J. Mayo handler to steer him to USC. Whether that's true or not will probably be borne out in the investigation. Now that the investigations are merged, it's going to be all the same to the NCAA, and the existence of a payment like that plus the refusal of the institution to either know, care, or take action depending on how much they got involved....that adds up to about as egregious a flaunting of the letter and spirit of things as you can get without being SMU and setting up a slush fund for your players.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
But Brian is essentially alleging that Kiffin paid Bush and McKnight if you read between the lines. Tim Floyd paying OJ Mayo's handler is irrelevant to that. The Bush accusations were that he was paid, while at USC, by an agent. Not by USC.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
Is that the Mayo stuff is about the basketball team. I think most people want to see the football get hit and don't care about the basketball team...And hopefully that's the last time I ever defend the USC football program, a program I dislike intensely.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
Uhhh you don't think it enables recruitment or facilitates having a better team if players are aware that they may be on the take with agents and not have coaches run interference?
January 13th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
Lloyd Carr did not run interference when Charles Woodson's future agent, widely believed to have been paying Woodson at the time, showed up at his Heisman Trophy presentation. The whole basis of this investigation into USC football has been about one player: Reggie Bush (this McKnight story came up years later and he was immediately booted from the team). I am aware of no program-wide pattern of players being on the take with agents in either instance.
Why does our own program get a free pass here while USC deserves to be hammered for years to come?
January 13th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
Ed Martin was not the U of M administration, yet U of M basketball got sledgehammered by the NCAA. By my recollection, that was NOT a "free pass".
January 14th, 2010 at 1:40 AM ^
Unless you know something most don't, McKnight wasn't booted from the team, just barred from playing in the bowl game while things were sorted out. Then he chose to go pro while the investigation was ongoing.
Edit: the remainder of this was based on my misreading that you were comparing the current UofM investigation to the USC investigation, as opposed to the Woodson and Bush situations. My fault.
January 14th, 2010 at 8:05 AM ^
I hadn't heard this before. What's your evidence?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Just google Marion Darnell Jones and Charles Woodson and you will get plenty of evidence/allegations. The Freep reported on it pretty extensively back in the day. Jones was at the Heisman ceremony and Woodson signed with him the day after the Rose Bowl. It is widely alleged/believed that Jones gave substantial money/gifts to Woodson and family. Jones (like the Bush benefactors) was a scumbag who ended up ripping off his NFL clients and going to jail. Woodson would have had to testify under oath about their arrangement but Jones plead guilty just before trial.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^
By your reasoning (he wasn't paid by USC) then we shouldn't have been hammered by the Ed Martin stuff, right? I mean, he wasn't the University of Michigan, he was a guy trying to launder gambling money.
USC deserves the same sledgehammer our basketball program deservedly got.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
The NCAA precedent for USC is the Michigan basketball team. Why wouldn't USC receive the exact same punishment? Fair is fair.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
Ed Martin (a single individual) paid large sums to a number of UM basketball players over an extended period of time. This is not analogous to the situation regarding USC football.
The entire Yahoo!Sports news story and the investigation that has been going on for four years all center around one player getting money from an "agent" before his eligibility and playing career had finished (this Joe McKnight story came out essentially after the investigation had been concluded and he was immediately booted from the school). This is the exact same allegation that has been credibly levied against Charles Woodson and UM FOOTBALL. UM football got a complete pass and no one on this blog (or really anywhere outside of super zealous fans of rival schools) thinks UM was running a dirty program or deserved to get hammered by the NCAA. The two programs were (if all allegations are believed) guilty of not preventing the exact same nearly impossible to police behavior in one isolated incident.
The analogy I'm making (and the one that makes the most sense) is between UM football circa 1997 and USC football today. Both had one marquee player who almost certainly should have been ineligible for part of his Heisman Trophy and National Championship winning playing career due to receiving benefits from some shady character trying to sign him as an agent. Both shared a campus with basketball programs that did/will receive NCAA sanctions.
If UM football deserved the free pass they got with respect to Woodson (which I firmly believe they did), I think USC football deserves the same rational treatment.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Seriously, I'm reluctant but willing to believe what you're saying about Woodson if you can show me where this assertion is coming from. Are you his agent?
January 14th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
As I pointed out above, it should be easy for you to look into the relationship between Woodson and Marion Darnell Jones. I would like to point out though that I'm not intending to take cheap shots at Woodson, Carr, or UM. I just want to illustrate the hypocrisy when people say USC should get hammered because the coaches "should have known" and that players were "on the take."
This kind of shady behavior by wannabe agents is nearly impossible to police and victimizes the student athletes as much as it does the university. Arbitrarily punishing athletic programs doesn't solve the problem or do any good in my book. Also, both cases (UM football in 1997 and USC football now) differ greatly from their respective basketball programs where the payout man had a close relationship with coaches who almost certainly knew what was going on (UM) or where the school signed a player that anyone with eyes would have known to be ineligible (USC).
January 13th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
That's not what I'm saying. If they knew kids were getting paid, they should be punished. What I'm saying is that agents paying kids is NOT the same thing as Kiffin paying them - which is basically what Brian is saying.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^
So, by that reasoning, would you have any problem if Michigan were to rehire Steve Fisher or Perry Watson?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
Brian is accusing Lane Kiffin of paying Bush and McKnight. That's what I'm addressing. Not his hire.
But - if Bush was paid by an agent (not the school), how much responsibility does Kiffin bear for that? Carroll bears responsibility because it's his program. Kiffin was a WR coach. If someone can establish he knew it happened, I'll blame him. But we're connecting circumstansial dots and pretending this is an air-tight, slam-dunk problem. It's a pogrom, and it's shoddy writing and reporting.
January 14th, 2010 at 6:07 AM ^
ctb2 putting words into people's mouths again. "responsible for" != "pay".
January 14th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^
I'm going to be a little more tactful than BlueSeoul, but if you think Brian said that Kiffin paid Bush and McKnight, I think you need to reread the article.
LANE KIFFIN WAS THE OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR AND RECRUITING COORDINATOR WHEN REGGIE BUSH WAS ON THE TAKE AND JOE MCKNIGHT COMMITTED TO USC. USC is hiring one of the guys—possibly the guy—who was most responsible for the NCAA coming down on the program.
LANE KIFFIN WAS THE OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR AND RECRUITING COORDINATOR WHEN REGGIE BUSH WAS ON THE TAKE AND JOE MCKNIGHT COMMITTED TO USC.I think it's pretty clear that Brian thinks Kiffin and Carroll bear as much responsibility as Fisher and Watson did for the Ed Martin scandal. They didn't receive any punishment from the NCAA, but I don't think anybody would've viewed it as a good idea to rehire them back in 2000.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^
Oh, come on! Read between the lines. He says that Bush and McKnight were on the take, and that this may bring USC down, and Brian says Kiffin was "possibly the guy...most responsible" for the situation. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^
IT MEANS HE WAS THE GUY ON THE STAFF WHO SHOULD'VE SEEN WHAT WAS GOING ON! NOT THAT HE DID IT OR ORGANIZED IT!
That's why I keep bringing up Fisher and Watson. They weren't directly responsible for the payments, but their inability to detect or stop it is shameful.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
Kiffin was the WR coach who recruited him. Why would Kiffin be aware of what was happening, from outside boosters, to a player with whom he was unassociated once Bush got to campus? Where's the outrage for Norm Chow? Or Ed Orgeron? Or Steve Sarkisian? Why aren't THEY named in Brian's post?
And, for the record - Watson isn't the same thing as Kiffin, neccesarily. Watson knew Martin, brought him into the program, and gave him access to Webber, Taylor, Traylor, etc. If someone establishes that Kiffin brought these outside agents to Bush's doorstep, he's guilty as sin and should be punished. We don't know that's what happened, and I haven't seen it alleged.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
It might have been hard for the coaches to know exactly what was going on, but doesn't the NCAA give them the responsibility of monotoring their players. If no reasonable person could have been expected to know about the violations, then there should be no punishment. I agree we shouldn't jump up and assume that Kiffin did something wrong until there is evidence, but the main point of Brian's post, as I read it, is that hiring a guy with his history at Tennessee and ties to the team being investigated challenges the NCAA. Most organizations try to avoid any semblence of impropriety and USC seems to be daring the NCAA to punish them.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
I'm not saying that "no reasonable person could have been expected to know about the violations" even - I'm wondering why that person is Kiffin when one of the players in question wasn't in the position group he coached, and the other wasn't at the school at the same time as him? If merely being a member of USC's staff makes you guilty, then where was the outrage when Washington hired Sarkisian? Or UCLA hired Chow? Or Ole Miss hired Orgeron?
January 14th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
1) Note that Brian said "one of the guys—possibly the guy." He isn't saying that Kiffin is certainly 100% responsible and those other people you mentioned are completely innocent.
2) Do you really think Kiffin had no contact with Bush when he was the WR coach? Wouldn't that change when he became OC? Regardless, I think you're still putting words in Brian's mouth.
3) I'll concede that Watson is a degree (or two, or three...) worse than anything Kiffin is being accused of (barring any new evidence) since he actually created the connections to Martin. I'm just using him as an example that you don't actually have to be making the payments to be culpable for the NCAA violations.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
He wrote possibly the guy. (emphasis mine)
January 14th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
possibly the guy. (emphasis mine)
January 14th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
I'm sure Kiffin didn't give him the cold-shoulder, but why, as a guy who coaches a different position, would he neccesarily have any more to do with him than any number of other USC assistants who have been hired by other Universities without being smeared?
January 14th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
but didn't Brian say he was the recruiting coordinator?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^
But it's really bad, right? It is in the broad neighborhood of what got Michigan bball nailed. It's certainly worse than practicing as much as every other DI school. But I guess we differ on that point.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
I'm not trying to say that if USC is guilty of what we are accusing them of, it's not bad. It is. It's worse than what RR is accused of. I agree.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
I re-read Brian's post and I don't see him imply that Kiffin paid Bush and McKnight. I read it as he was the guy who had the most contact with those two from the program and has shown in a very short time a propensity to commit violations (albeit secondary) with very little regard for the letter of the NCAA law. USC, as an institution which includes the basketball team, chose to hire a guy who is tied to violations currently under investigation.
I agree it is important to note that USC football hasn't been connected with payments to players, but that doesn't absolve them from allowing their players to break the rules.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
Kiffin was responsible for their RECRUITMENT. He was not the coach most in contact with them when they were on campus because:
a) he wasn't Bush's position coach, nor was he even the OC for the majority of Bush's tenure.
b) he was, despite being the recruiter of McKnight, not at the school at the same time for a second. McKnight's first season at USC was 2007 - which was Kiffin's first with the Raiders. I've seen no allegation that McKnight's recruitment was dirty (other than an allegation that Bush called him, which would be a violation). If people got to McKnight at his time at USC, that's not Kiffin's fault - he wasn't at USC.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
We shouldn't presume that Kiffin did anything wrong without evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. But hiring him still looks bad I think. I look it as more of arrogance and a pr issue unless some proof is found.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
I agree that hiring him is, from a PR stance, bizarre.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
Be careful, I think you're agreeing with the main point Brian tried to make with this story.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
That's funny. I read that he wanted USC obliterated.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
Isn't USC's decision to do something that, PR wise, looks like this the reason that Brian wants them obliterated?
January 14th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^
So they should be obliterated because of how things appear, rather than how they neccesarily are? I'm not following.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
Well, it depends on how you think things appear. To me, it appears that USC admitted that something happened by attempting to self-impose sanctions. It then appears that the NCAA thinks the violations are worse than USC thinks by rejecting the attempt. USC then proceeds to hire a guy who has connections to the original incident and was a walking recruiting violation at Tennessee. Does this not show complete defiance at a time USC should be showing contrition and make it clear there will be no further problems?
January 14th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
I don't know, I have a hard time believing they're stupid enough to give the NCAA a giant middle finger. I also don't think Kiffin, or especially his lawyers, are stupid enough to walk into pending harsh sanctions.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
I just don't buy the story/idea that Tim Floyd was standing on the street corner giving out cash to Mayo's people. And why would $1,000 be enough to secure his commitment? Just doesn't add up to me.
That being said, USC should have known that Mayo was connected with people providing him with illegal extra benefits and is rightly being sanctioned for signing him anyway.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^
At least you didnt threaten to punch somebody in the mouth. Progress, brother, progress.
Wait, too soon?
Comments