What has happened to USC Football?

November 22, 2018

On the eve of the latest installment of college football's greatest inter-sectional rivalry between USC and Notre Dame, the question that has to be asked is what is going on within the football program at USC?

_________________________

During the early decade of the new century, USC, a long-dormant college football Blue Blood, returned to glory under NFL castoff Pete Carroll.  During a stretch run that began in 2002, USC was the dominant program in college football.  The team won several Rose Bowls, its players won three Heisman Trophies in 4 years, and the team won 2 national championships and had several final Top 4 finishes.  It was one of the best years during the program 115-year history.  I don't remember the program having so much success within a 10-year span in its history.  Eventually, "All Good Things Must Come to an End."  Reggie Bush, a megastar on the team which won 34 games in a row, was found to have accepted money and gifts from two aspiring agents. They also provided his parents with a house to live in that was far larger than his family's original home.  

After a protracted NCAA investigation, Mr. Bush was stripped of his Heisman, and the program saw its 2004 BCS title vacated.  It was an inglorious end for USC players, coaches, and alumni.    The result was 4 years of being banned from post-season bowl games, including any Rose Bowls.  Additionally, the school was stripped of 25 scholarships for the team over the same span and put on NCAA probation for the same period.  This gutted the program and saw it dip to a difficult time in terms of wins and relevance.  Many recruits who had accepted commitments to the school de-committed and enrolled in other prominent schools.

After Pete Carrol left, former assistant coaches were hired to guide the program including Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian.  Both were fired under comical and sad moments, which included Kiffin being fired at the airport and not being allowed to return with the team back to the school. Mr. Sarkisian became the butt of jokes during a pep rally when cameras caught slurring his speech and he was eventually fired. He attempted to sue the school for wrongful termination but lost his lawsuit. The current coach, Clay Helton was a former assistant under Sarkisian. His first two years brought initial success, which included a memorable win against Penn State in the 2017 Rose Bowl, and a Pac-12 title and a Cotton Bowl birth against fellow Blue Blood Ohio State in 2018.  The current season has the team at 5-6, which includes a shameful loss to a weak UCLA team. USC coaches are measured by their wins, but most especially, their record against their most bitter rivals, including UCLA and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

The current UCLA team is 3 and 8, and the loss to the Bruins was uninspiring, mostly because of the high caliber of players on its roster.  It should not be seen as listless and unable to move the ball. The Bruins were not a good team, and are at least 2 years away from contending in the Pac-12 conference.  On Saturday night, USC played Notre Dame tough and was leading at halftime. However, like every game this season, the Trojans hurt themselves with bad penalties that killed momentum on offense and gave up big plays on defense.  Ultimately, the Irish prevailed 24-17.

What is the cause of this latest malaise?  In my opinion, USC is like many major programs who constantly search for a return to their best years, in terms of winning and championships.  Why has the program seen long periods of mediocrity?  The program generally does not seem to be run very well, based on my years following the team.  For a university located in one of the most desirable locations (Los Angeles), how can a football program be run so poorly?  The athletic director and coaches are chosen by the Trustees of the school, most of whom are prominent in the greater Los Angeles area, and are extremely wealthy and successful.  With this group of alumni, why does USC give the impression that it is run in such a comical manner?  The previous athletic director, Pat Haden and the current one, Lynn Swann are former players, and in the case of Mr. Swann, was also a legendary NFL player and Hall of Fame inductee to boot.  What is the reason for their hires?  USC, like many college football programs, want former players to run their programs because of their on-field success, and who make program boosters and alumni happy.  I don't see why this is such a good idea.  Just because you had success as a player (and with Mr. Swann a successful post-career businessman as well) doesn't provide any reason you can run a wealthy college program, nor have any expertise in finding the right coaches.  That goes for the school's Trustees too.  

What the program needs instead of hiring former players is to go in a different direction.  USC should find successful people who have run large organizations with large budgets and have proven to be exceptional leaders and can hire the best people who can bring their own success once given the tools to succeed.  The Trojan football team and its history can sell itself.  What the football program needs are visionary people who can run the athletic department like a well-oiled and efficient machine.  USC Athletics should be focused more on the big picture and be the envy of those in and out of college athletics.  I understand that USC wants people who have close ties to its football team, which is the highest priority of the athletic department and the thousands of former alumni.  I hope Mr. Swann does well (as do other alumni as well), but I don't see this happening.  He has not run a football program anywhere else, nor is there any success in pro football on an administrative level.  The Trustees put their faith in popular former players for some reason.  I get the feeling that USC will have more mediocrity for the foreseeable future.  What can be done to improve USC's football program?

I suggest they hire a former CEO for the athletic director position.  These executives have experience with large organizations and can institute proper formats for hiring football coaches, and the best methods in the daily operations for running the department as a whole.  It should be run like a small corporation, with an image that projects success, finding the right person for specific jobs, like fundraising and marketing.  I want the program to be seen by those on the outside as an organization that many want to imitate and try to copy.  This means the athletic teams do not always need to be dominant but are examples of what it means to be a USC Trojan: dedicated, strives for success, never gives up, honors their school through competition, and brings financial riches to a prominent program.

In addition, prominent boosters for the football team should understand that while USC is a great program, it won't always be the best job available.  Popularity and success ebbs and flows, even for the best programs, and those boosters should not assume that everyone wants to be a Trojan, or are jealous of the history of the football team. A more humble and respectful tone should be shown to any prospective coach.  The school should seek a coach who is successful at a program that is not well known for its wins but seems capable of shouldering the burden of being USC's leader. Especially with its demanding alumni.

If the school follows this format, I think USC Athletics can be seen as an impressive organization within the collegiate community, but also to those in the business world.  Having the right person at the top trickles down to everyone and everything else.  The CEO-type person sets the standard for those employees of the department and is the point person for how it carries itself and what goals and objectives it must reach to be successful in all aspects.  I want USC to return the glory years in the early years of this century, but it needs to jettison the way it has been run for the better part of the last century.

Post-Election Review: What happened?

November 20, 2018

Armageddon: Part II is complete, and now we can read the tea leaves.  A review of what happened.

______________________________

Well, no one ever said that politics in America lacks the passion and conflicting emotions that you see in other countries, like South Korea, Japan, and parts of Europe! Tuesday, November 6th was a continuation of the proxy war that started with Donald Trump's surprise victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Pollsters, pundits and former politicians on cable channels were under the belief that the Democrats would regain control of the House, and the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, just barely.  Which is what happened.  However, depending on where your political allegiances lie, the parsing of the results makes for good copy.  The Democrats can claim that winning the House is a check on the agenda of President Trump, while the Republicans can claim that in statewide elections for the Senate, candidates who supported President Trump's agenda won big.  Additionally, the GOP can show that Senators who supported and voted for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court won, while those who opposed it (Senator Heitkamp), lost their election bids.  Both parties may be right, and that overall, voters preferred divided government.  For the next two years, the House will provide a check on the President's agenda, and open investigations into alleged Russian interference and meddling, and the Republican Senate will confirm more conservative judges onto the federal bench.

Many of the progressive Democratic candidates won impressive and surprising elections.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her general election race, which doesn't surprise political observers since her district is reliably Democratic.  Two native American women won: Deb Haaland (New Mexico), and Sharice Davids (Kansas), who is openly gay as well. Muslim women won notable races, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Llhan Omar (Minnesota), that adds much-needed diversity to the lower House. Most of the impressive winning candidates are pro-immigrant, and they will provide staunch support of immigrants who seek to live in the United States.  In fact, I would venture to guess that most of the above-mentioned newly elected women will be given multiple opportunities to go on the Sunday talk shows and push back on Trump Administration policies that affect those who seek asylum and desire to become new immigrants.

I think any proposed legislation or executive orders by President Trump will run into fierce opposition and will have visible platforms to paint President Trump in a negative light.  In fact, Mr. Trump needs to be careful about what he does in regards to "immigrant" issue, or a media that is heavily skewed progressive and liberal will roast his actions.  Congress will not be able to pass an anti-immigration bill.   President Trump's supposed deal-making will have to be in full force.  This might be the best time to pass immigration reform, although, that will infuriate his base, which does not want the United States to allow more immigrants into the country.

As usual with Florida's vote counting, trouble brewed.  The last time controversy erupted, it was ground zero for a low point in American democracy that was during the recount of Florida's Electoral votes which determined the winner of the 2000 Presidential election for George W. Bush. Two high-profile races, Ron Desantis versus Andrew Gillum for governor, and Governor Rick Scott who defeated Democrat Bill Nelson for the U.S. Senate gave premature victories to Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Scott.  Andrew Gillum initially conceded on election night, while Rick Scott just accepted his victory without a concession from Senator Nelson. Both races had seen surprising turns. Mr. Gillum had withdrawn his concession, and took to the media to address his decision, and vowed to ensure all votes are counted. Recently, this weekend, after more votes were recorded, Mr. Gillum realized he was not going to overcome the deficit. Bill Nelson had protested and wanted to see his votes counted as well.  After lawsuits and protests, two counties, Broward and Miami-Dade, tallied more votes. Broward County is the epicenter for another round of drama. Both counties eventually gave the race to Rick Scott.  Bill Nelson conceded this past Saturday.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio alleged there was vote tampering and obfuscation from election officials with a large number of votes for both races.  There were videos (unverified by national media) showing a ballot box in the storage room of a school and another ballot box was shown to be in a car.  The county administrator in charge of validating votes, Brenda Snipes, was admonished by a judge for incompetence and who had in the past destroyed old votes in a previous race before they were legally allowed to be terminated. Florida Republicans wanted her removed from her position. However, she is charged with approving and certifying ballots cast for all elections in the state, and some within the GOP feel that Bush versus Gore ghosts could have cropped up again. Ms. Snipes recently stated that she will resign before Governor-elect Ron DeSantis takes office.

At the writing of this blog post, Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has not "officially" conceded and alleges that all votes have not been counted.  The Georgia campaign was tinged with allegations from state Democrats that the current victor, Brian Kemp, used his position as Secretary of State to try to remove voter rolls that favored Democrats. He had done this prior and was forced by a state appeals judge to end that practice and add names to voter rolls that had been removed. This has increased the air of uncertainty regarding American democracy and adds to the lack of trust in American institutions within government and society in general.  The vote counting will add to the toxicity of our discourse and adds fuel to the fire of conflict amongst Americans.  Perhaps in the future, if a current Secretary of State is running for a statewide or federal race, a law will be passed by the legislature to ensure the perception of fairness and transparency and hand vote counting to someone else?

With the Democrat victory in the House, Nancy Pelosi is poised to become Speaker again, and although her more aggressive and politically posturing members want her to focus on impeachment, she is shrewd enough to know that is not a winning strategy. Democrats Gerald Nadler (NY) and Adam Schiff (CA) will go after President Trump and will look under any rock to sow the perception of impropriety, but Ms. Pelosi knows the key to long-term success and dominance is to remain loyal to the party's wealthy, moderate donors. Additionally, Democrats now share many of the corporate benefactors that Republicans do, so any progressive dreams of Single Payer health care and free college tuition will not gain any traction to become law.

One can fathom that Americans tend to prefer a divided government, especially with a controversial president like Donald Trump.  Considering the lack of progress by legislators to pass needed reforms to health care, pragmatic taxation and defense spending, I doubt things will improve.  Social media has allowed Americans to withdraw from direct dialogue with each other,  and to avoid finding common ground to challenging issues. It will continue to allow citizens to demonize those with whom they disagree.  The recent 2018 Midterms was just another battle in the long political war amongst the two major political parties and their supporters.  Hopefully, as President Lincoln once stated, we can call to our "better angels" and move America forward.