What are people’s thoughts on the next, yet to be determined, USC coach?

[SalUteopia]

What are people’s thoughts on the next USC coach? It’s sort of a dilemma from Utah standpoint. If USC sucks, it improves our chances of winning the South; but if they’re good, it helps the P12. I’m seeing names like James Franklin, Luke Fickell being thrown around, and I think both have the capacity to bring back USC to national prominence, but I don’t know how to feel about it. I’m good with USC sucking, and Utah becoming the face of the South. What’re your thoughts? Who do you think they end up hiring?

[James]

If I’m USC, I’m hiring Eric Bienemy to be my next head coach. I would also make a run at Dabo Sweeney and to a lesser extent, maybe Lane Kiffin (again).

[SalUteopia]

Don’t see Dabo leaving Clemson. Urban would be a slam dunk, but that ship has sailed. Franklin/Fickell would get them double digit wins within a couple seasons. If it’s someone like Matt Campbell (don’t see it happening), it will be a long-term project.

[younglurch]

I personally think Bienemy is too much of a risk for USC at this point. He’s never been a head coach, and I know some people wonder how much of the Chief’s offense is his doing vs Andy Reid’s. Don’t get me wrong, Bienemy deserves his shot at a HC gig, but I don’t think USC is best for either party.

[Hellhound152]

If they actually hire “the guy” whoever it is, it will be a Chip Kelly 5 year build back to national credibility with major roster turnover so the culture and roster can be fixed.  If they hire “a guy” they will be quickly be back to 9 and 10 win seasons and a perennial conference player but nationally not so much.

The independent question is at what point does Utah plateau in recruiting (top 30? top 20?) and how does that impact the pecking order.  Currently Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Utah, and ASU are objectively better than USC in the box on both sides of the ball and that will take more time to cure than if it were a skill position problem.

Last I heard from one of my work acquaintances who is an SC booster the donors, university administration, and actual football people are still miles apart on expectation for the hire. 

[MDUte]

I believe the right hire could turn SC around within 2 years. He could immediately have SC back on top of the PAC with a double digit win season and poised to be contending for a spot in the CFP in year 2. Why? Because they have the talent to be that good. They only lack the leadership and culture to get there. SC is exactly the type of program Urban Meyer would target because he knows he can win there on day 1.

Chip Kelly has proven to be a good coach but not an elite coach. Given the fact there aren’t any “can’t miss” hires out there, who knows if SC will end up being good-to-great YoY or if they will return to national prominence and elite. Seems more likely to me they’ll end up with a good coach like a Chip Kelly and take 4 years of rebuilding as Hellhound suggests. But with all of the talent they have there, it doesn’t have to take that long.

Regarding Utah’s recruiting ceiling, I believe it depends on whether we can break through and win a conference championship or not. So far we’ve continued to take steps forward from a winning standpoint and recruiting has followed. If we are successful taking this next step then our recruiting should improve into the teens IMO. That’s where Stanford was able to get to when they were winning the conference. I think it would take us breaking into the CFP to have top a 10 recruiting class and then staying nationally relevant for several years. I’m not expecting that to ever happen in my lifetime but winning the conference and having recruiting classes in the top 20 is realistic and should be the goal IMO.

[SalUteopia]

Agree with @MDUte’s take. A good coach could get them into the playoffs within a couple seasons. USC has too much talent, and they have not been in shambles like FSU or Tennessee. They won the Rose Bowl not too long ago, and have recently had 9-10 win seasons.

[Hellhound152]

I think there is a bit of a perception vs. reality optic when it comes to USC.  Those close to the program and the media that specifically covers the program have pointed directly to the lack of overall talent on the roster in the front seven of the defense and on the offensive line.

I know I get blinded by the pagentry and tradition of the Cardinal and Gold but reports out of Trojan land is that the program is in total shambles culturally and from a depth and talent standpoint.  Going from getting ran over by OSU (the beavs not the bucks) to lining up man for man with Alabama (the expectation) is going to require more than motivational speech and gimmicks.  Line play, more so than any other position group, takes time to build   

Darnold was a generational talent that covered up a lot of warts.  They could be in the CFP mix in two years due to conference affiliation but to get back to where they were during the Carrol years will take three to five exceptional recruiting classes minimum. 

[dwainegf]

Ted Lasso

[GreatNorthernUte]

Ultimately it is better for the entire conference if USC makes a good hire.  Including Utah.

Like it or not, Pac 12 national prominence is best when USC is good.  The conference has a way better chance at a good TV deal in a few years if USC can turn it around.  Wilner has been beating this drum for a long time.

Even if Utah wins fewer division titles, the titles they do win will look better and we will have better rankings.  A one loss Utah Pac 12 champ team has a much better playoff argument if they either beat a good USC team or it is the only loss.

[MDUte]

Totally agree that we want and need USC to be good for the overall health of the conference. And that doesn’t mean we have to lose to SC. The ideal situation for us is battling SC YoY for the South Division where both teams finish Conf play at 8-1 but we are the ones that give SC their only loss.

[Author]

Posts