Going into USC's final two games, I predicted that they would sneak past UCLA, and that would be enough to ensure that Clay Helton would remain the head coach going into next season. Instead, USC came out flat in the second half and blew a lead against a (then) 2-8 UCLA team that was tied for last place in the conference, allowing the Bruins offense to march up and down the field while only putting up a meager 3 points of their own. Now assuming USC loses to Notre Dame (currently the point spread is Notre Dame -10.5), they will not even finish the season bowl eligible. That is simply unacceptable for a team with USC's talent. Normally, a coach can buy himself another season by firing a key member or two from his coaching staff, however Helton already played that card when he fired his offensive line coach and took over play calling responsibilities from his offensive coordinator. All of this has me feeling confident that athletic director Lynn Swann will fire Helton.
I take no joy in making this prediction. He's a man with a family, and by all accounts he is a good person. Contrary to what many USC fans might claim, Helton is a competent coach who brought some much needed stability to the program. He has recruited at a level close to Alabama and Ohio State. I actually think Helton's defenses have been pretty good - the statistics don't bear that out, but I thought there were a lot of times when their defense held stout despite being put in bad positions by the offense. You simply don't win a Rose Bowl and a Pac-12 championship by dumb luck. However, a program like USC should aspire to championships, not competency, and all the evidence suggests that Clay Helton is not a championship caliber coach. If you go by S&P+, USC has gone from finishing 9th to 26th to 41st (you see a similar trend with F+, AP ranking, coaches poll ranking, etc.). Helton is 20-4 with Sam Darnold, and 10-10 without him (I will admit I have been critical of Darnold in this space, and in retrospect I probably was too harsh on him). Obviously any coach will be better with a first round pick at quarterback (although a lot of coaches would kill for Cody Kessler and J.T. Daniels), but USC has such a big recruiting advantage over its conference that it should not be that dependent on the quarterback position for success.
To me, the data tells the following story: Helton inherited a roster that was loaded at key positions, but underachieved due to poor in-game coaching and a generally loose program culture. Helton brought stability and allowed the players to thrive (although they could have thrived more if Helton had started Darnold over Max Browne). However over time Helton's players started cycling into the program, and Helton's inability to develop players (especially offensive linemen) became a bigger and bigger problem. It is possible that Helton could become a great coach one day, but it's hard to see that happening at USC. To me, he was essentially given the keys to a Ferrari before he had even driven a Honda Accord. Perhaps you could argue that Helton deserves a chance to reverse the trend. I would argue that it is better to fire him now because it would be disastrous if he can't turn it around. It is always better to move on from a coach a year early rather than a year late, and that is especially true when you consider that USC is scheduled to play Alabama to open the 2020 season.
Assuming USC fires Helton and begins a coaching search, there are going to be people who, in an effort to to sound smart, claim that USC is actually not as great of a job as it looks. This is complete nonsense. USC boasts a combination of decorated football history and access to local talent that rivals any program in the country. They have won national championships across several decades, and churned out NFL draft picks with regularity. There is no reason to think USC is anything less than a top five job. I however, think USC actually has a strong case as the program where it is easiest to win a national championship, for two reasons. First, while geography is the primary factor that drives recruiting, it should be easier to convince a kid from the Midwest or the South to come to Tinseltown than the other way around. Second, when operating at peak efficiency, USC can recruit just as well as Alabama, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Florida, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. The difference is, those teams have to compete against each other, whereas none of USC's regional competitors have historically recruited at that level. The west coast has enough blue chippers to support one elite program, and USC essentially has a monopoly on those players.
The aforementioned contrarians will point to the fact that USC has had title droughts in the 80's, 90's, and 2010's as proof that USC is not an elite program. I don't buy this argument. There were times in the past 20 years when you could have made the same argument about Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Florida State - does anybody doubt the championship DNA of those programs right now? There are certainly examples of programs, such as Nebraska, that truly do lose the ability to compete for championships, but I do not believe that applies to USC. They have had extended success in this millennium under Pete Carroll, they still are surrounded by plenty of blue-chip talent, and they never depended on some of the fleeting advantages (TV coverage, academic loopholes, and ahead-of-its time strength and conditioning programs) on which Nebraska did. USC's recent decline can be attributed in part to crippling NCAA sanctions, and in larger part to poor coaching hires. This is not a case of 20/20 hindsight - if USC had hired multiple well-regarded coaches who tanked once they got to USC, I would be more open to the idea that USC may be a worse job than it appears. However, Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, and Clay Helton were all universally criticized at the time the moves were made. Kiffin had consistently failed upwards while proving nothing as the coach of the Raiders and the Volunteers; Sarkisian was nicknamed "Seven Win Sark" during his tenure at Washington; Helton was promoted from the interim position despite going 5-4 as the interim coach and having never been considered an elite coordinator. The first two hires were naked attempts to reverse engineer the Pete Carroll, and the Helton hire was made mostly on the basis of ending USC's losing streak to UCLA. In each case, you simply cannot argue that USC hired the best coach available and still couldn't win.
I am not a USC fan (though I am not not a USC fan, but that's a story for another time), but as a college football fan I want the Trojans to be good. I think the sport is better when the national championship race is truly national, and I believe USC is the only program West of the Rockies that can compete with teams like Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas when those programs are firing on all cylinders. Teams like Washington, Oregon, and Stanford simply have never recruited at that level, and while theoretically UCLA may have the ability to become an elite program, empirical evidence says otherwise. Thus, I want to see USC hire the best possible coach. These are my thoughts on how I would approach the search.
First, I will give the following caveats:
- USC should not, under any circumstances, hire a coach with a history of unscrupulous behavior, especially with regards to sexual assault. This obviously disqualifies scumbags like Art Briles, Urban Meyer, and Jimbo Fisher. However, if any of the coaches I mention have a reprehensible history of which I am not aware, then they too should be ignored.
- I certainly don't know the financial state of USC's athletic department - perhaps they simply can't afford the ideal candidate right now. I am ignoring such considerations.
- I do not know the personality of these coaches, and I don't know how well they would mesh with USC's boosters and alumni. Personally I think in an ideal scenario, USC's athletic director would be the one placating the boosters so that the head coach can focus on football, but you certainly don't want the coach to have a militant relationship with the biggest donors.
Next, here are the traits that I would look for in USC's next coach:
- USC should be looking for someone who has already been an excellent college head coach, ideally at a Power 5 school. I emphasize college because they should not hire an NFL retread who is not familiar with the state of modern college football schemes or recruiting. Obviously it is better to hire a high upside coordinator than a college retread whose success either has been limited or occurred far in the past. But until USC actually gets shot down by their top choices, they can and should aim high.
- USC should hire someone with minimal prior ties to the school. In theory, it would be silly to voluntarily reduce the pool of candidates. However, USC's worst hires have historically been attempts to recreate the past by hiring someone who was at the school during successful times. One of the reasons Pete Carroll was such as successful hire is that he was an outsider who imposed imposed toughness on a program that had become soft and complacent.
- USC's offensive line has consistently underachieved since Peter Carroll left - it is really baffling that their running game doesn't annually steamroll Pac-12 defenses. I think USC should try to hire someone with a history of producing strong offensive line play.
With those guidelines delineated, here is how I would proceed:
Pie in the Sky Candidates
- Gary Patterson: I don't think Patterson would be likely to leave TCU - it seems like he's content to finish his career there. However it is possible Patterson is itching to try coaching at a place where he wouldn't be at a consistent talent disadvantage, and feels that now is as good a time as any to leave TCU. It would be crazy for USC not to at least do their due diligence, just like they did with Chris Petersen in 2013. Patterson's resume speaks for itself. There definitely is some room for healthy skepticism over his recent struggles in the Big 12. I believe this is because TCU had high rates of attrition due to injury, and they are still cycling out their inferior recruiting classes and cycling in their better ones. I believe Patterson's defensive schemes would be dynamite with the kind of speed that USC can recruit, and he would be able to run an offensive system with which he is more comfortable.
- Kyle Whittingham: USC has elite line recruits but mediocre line play. Utah is the opposite - they always are one of the toughest teams in the conference despite not having the best recruiting rankings. Whittingham is as good as any coach at developing teams that are both physically and mentally tough. Moreover, I've been impressed with his willingness to incorporate spread tactics into his offense over the last few years. Whittingham is eminently familiar with recruiting on the west coast. I think Whittingham has taken Utah as far as that program can go, and I don't think it's crazy to think he would want to jump up to a program where he can get better players.
- Paul Chryst: Like with Patterson. there is no reason to believe that Paul Chryst wants to leave Wisconsin, given that he has coached there for the majority of his career. However, it is not hard to imagine how much success Chryst could have with the level of offensive linemen that USC consistently recruits. USC should see if he is interested in leaving Wisconsin for a job that is a clear step up.
Rising Star Head Coaches
- Jeff Brohm: Jeff Brohm has consistently produced top 25 (and often top 10) offenses despite coaching at Western Kentucky and Purdue. What I really like about this hire is that I would love to see Brohm get the chance to work with the seemingly endless supply of elite pocket passers pass through USC. I have little doubt that Brohm would turn J.T. Daniels into a Heisman trophy contender. I have really loved how versatile his Purdue offenses have been - they can seamlessly transition between an old school power running game and modern spread passing game. Brohm may well be dead set on taking the Louisville job, but USC needs to at least try to outbid the Cardinals.
- Matt Campbell: He has been successful at both Toledo and Iowa State, neither of which have the built in advantages of USC. I have been especially impressed by his ability to craft excellent defenses in a conference that eats defense for breakfast. He might have the best linebacking corps in the Big 12! I think you would like to see his offenses be better, but if he nails his offensive coordinator hire I think he will be fine.
- Dino Babers: Babers has an impressive, albeit short, track record. He elevated both Eastern Illinois and Bowling Green to 10 win seasons, and he has a chance to do that at Syracuse. I don't think this Syracuse team is as good as its record - they've primarily benefited from a soft schedule - but I do think appreciate how much he has gotten out of his talent. I like that Babers runs a cutting edge offense, and he consistently recruits at a top 50 level despite being stuck in a location without a lot of blue chip talent. I think Babers is the biggest risk on this list, but it would also be an exciting, out of the box hire should USC be unable to lure the coaches listed above.
Rising Star Coordinators
- Dave Aranda: If USC can't hire the coaches listed above, I'm not sure what other established head coaches excite me. Dave Doeren, Justin Fuente and Bryan Harsin would probably be fine, but those are low upside hires. At that point I would probably just start looking at coordinators, and Dave Aranda would be my top choice. His defenses at Wisconsin and LSU have been nothing short of phenomenal. I know some will point out that he was usually working with NFL caliber athletes at LSU, and this is certainly true, but he was an elite coordinator without those caliber of athletes at Wisconsin, and I think this ignores the fact that LSU's anemic offense has put a lot of strain on their defense over the last few years. Aranda will have USC playing the best defense in the conference in short order. The question becomes, how well can he recruit, and will he hire the right people to run the offense.
- Brent Venables: While players like Deshaun Watson and Tajh Boyd have gotten the most notoriety (and rightfully so) for elevating Clemson to the upper tier of college football, but Brent Venables has been crucial for their staying power. His recruiting and coaching has turned Clemson into an assembly line of NFL defensive linemen. He has been an assistant for a long time, and has never been a head coach, which gives me some pause. It's possible he has no interest in being a head coach, or perhaps lacks certain skills that are essential to being a head coach.
- Ryan Day: I think Ohio State's coaching staff has wasted an extremely talented roster this year. The exception to this is Ryan Day, who I think has done an incredible job of coaching up Dwayne Haskins. I was impressed by Day's brief stint as OSU's head coach, when he brought much needed energy and innovation to an offense that had gotten incredibly stale last year. Obviously any team that hires him would need to investigate whether Day had any knowledge of Zach Smith's domestic abuse, and whether he had any role in covering up the abuse and/or keeping Smith on staff. But even assuming his hands are clean, it seems a bit early to give him a job at a high profile program. He probably could use a couple years of seasoning at a group of 5 school.
Coaches I would not consider
- Pete Carroll: I get it - on paper this is the perfect guy to return USC to glory. I would personally love nothing more than to see Pete Carroll back at USC, because of his willingness to schedule as aggressively as possible out of conference. However I think USC needs to stop trying to recreate past glory and look for someone whose best days are ahead. Carroll is 67, hasn't coached a college game in nearly a decade, and burned quite a few bridges when he left USC in 2009.
- Bob Stoops: Like Carroll, on paper this seems like a no-brainer hire. Stoops is one of the all-time great college football coaches However, I think Stoops clearly lost his fastball several years ago. His last several Oklahoma teams were simply not good at defense, in large part due to the nepotism of letting his brother Mike call the plays. After he got destroyed by Clemson in the Russell Athletic Bowl, I honestly thought Stoops was a year away from getting fired, but Lincoln Riley and Baker Mayfield managed to paper over his teams defensive issues during Stoops's last two years. I think USC needs to hire someone whose career is still on the upswing.
- Jeff Fisher and Jack Del Rio: I do not care that they have NFL head coaching experience, or that they both know the USC fight song. They were both mediocre NFL head coaches with no college coaching experience whatsoever. I am not necessarily opposed to college teams hiring NFL retreads (I was lukewarm on ASU's decision to hire Herm Edwards), but USC is a good enough job that they shouldn't have to take that kind of risk. I realize that the same arguments could have been made about Pete Carroll in 2001, to which I have two rebuttals. First, sometimes a bad process can occasionally produce good results, but that doesn't justify repeating the process. Second, Carroll's energetic personality gave USC good reason to believe he would be a dynamic recruiter - I don't feel the same way about Fisher or Del Rio.
