- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is Kiffin considered a bad hire as a CF coach?
Posted on 7/5/10 at 4:04 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 7/5/10 at 4:04 pm to LSUTANGERINE
I'm starting to see why so many posters find you so annoying when you willfully miss points and misconstrue arguments and then mock your own distorted interpretations.
1
Posted on 7/5/10 at 4:23 pm to Jamohn
quote:
I'm starting to see why so many posters find you so annoying when you willfully miss points and misconstrue arguments and then mock your own distorted interpretations.
specifically where did I do this?
Posted on 7/5/10 at 4:32 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Fine. I'll play for one more post:
The "luck" to which I was referring was not "luck" like you described "if Kiffin is successful that means he's luck, lol." I meant "luck" in a sense that USC would be lucky if Kiffin turns out to be a good coach.
The fact remains that a program of USC's stature has no reason to take a hail mary on an unproven, loudmouthed, bombastic potential sanction libility.
Kiffin was a good hire at Tenn because he was what they needed. The program was fading, fans were losing interest, the program had fallen from the national scene. Kiffin's antics energized the program, his questionable recruiting tactics brought an influx of talent, and suddenly the program was relevant again.
USC should be above that. Looking at the info in front of them and their situation, along w/ Kiffin's track record, the school made a BAD HIRE in that they shouldn't have to gamble on a guy like this, especially given their current situation in the NCAA doghouse.
I can look at the Brian Kelly hire at Notre Dame and say "that's a good hire." Why? Because it is the competent move based on the information available at the time of the hire. The Kiffin hire is terrible for the same reason. If he turns out to be a good coach--which he might, for all we know--it's LUCK. Not that he got lucky to win, but USC got lucky that the poorly-though-out hire happened to work out. It's like a multiple choice math problem--You could get the answer right by working the problem and finding the solution and then selecting the proper choice; or you could just mark "C" w/o knowing anything. Both answers would be right. But only one would have done a good job on the problem.
If you wanna purposely misinterpret that so you can mock it, go ahead. I won't respond.
The "luck" to which I was referring was not "luck" like you described "if Kiffin is successful that means he's luck, lol." I meant "luck" in a sense that USC would be lucky if Kiffin turns out to be a good coach.
The fact remains that a program of USC's stature has no reason to take a hail mary on an unproven, loudmouthed, bombastic potential sanction libility.
Kiffin was a good hire at Tenn because he was what they needed. The program was fading, fans were losing interest, the program had fallen from the national scene. Kiffin's antics energized the program, his questionable recruiting tactics brought an influx of talent, and suddenly the program was relevant again.
USC should be above that. Looking at the info in front of them and their situation, along w/ Kiffin's track record, the school made a BAD HIRE in that they shouldn't have to gamble on a guy like this, especially given their current situation in the NCAA doghouse.
I can look at the Brian Kelly hire at Notre Dame and say "that's a good hire." Why? Because it is the competent move based on the information available at the time of the hire. The Kiffin hire is terrible for the same reason. If he turns out to be a good coach--which he might, for all we know--it's LUCK. Not that he got lucky to win, but USC got lucky that the poorly-though-out hire happened to work out. It's like a multiple choice math problem--You could get the answer right by working the problem and finding the solution and then selecting the proper choice; or you could just mark "C" w/o knowing anything. Both answers would be right. But only one would have done a good job on the problem.
If you wanna purposely misinterpret that so you can mock it, go ahead. I won't respond.
This post was edited on 7/5/10 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 7/5/10 at 5:11 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Not a real strong heading coaching record. He gets violations often enough he will be one of those guys who gets each school he works for in some sort of trouble.
Posted on 7/5/10 at 5:30 pm to Jamohn
quote:
The fact remains that a program of USC's stature has no reason to take a hail mary on an unproven, loudmouthed, bombastic potential sanction libility.
A. maybe they couldn't get any higher candidates on their list
B. usc wants to stay in the news somehow and stay relevant, otherwise they run the risk of being ignored by being a middling program on probation
Posted on 7/5/10 at 5:47 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:I find it hard to believe that USC has fallen this far that they:
A. maybe they couldn't get any higher candidates on their list
B. usc wants to stay in the news somehow and stay relevant, otherwise they run the risk of being ignored by being a middling program on probation
A. Couldn't get anybody better than Lane Kiffin
B. Have to resort to risky, cheap tricks to stay relevant. This is the program that has been the apple of ESPN and the national media's eye for the better part of the past decade. If this is true, USC is in a lot more trouble than I thought.
Posted on 7/5/10 at 5:59 pm to Jamohn
quote:
A. Couldn't get anybody better than Lane Kiffin
B. Have to resort to risky, cheap tricks to stay relevant. This is the program that has been the apple of ESPN and the national media's eye for the better part of the past decade. If this is true, USC is in a lot more trouble than I thought.
maybe kiffin was REALLY high on their list. i mean he has NFL and SEC experience at what, 34? and his dad is still around. get the right young coach and you can be set for two generations
and relevancy is relevancy, ask LA Tech and ULL. they seem to be in the news more often than Tulane and ULM and that gets reflected in the standings
you have to think that other coaches (like Pete) could see their probation coming
Posted on 7/5/10 at 5:59 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
LSUTANGERINE
Should we search ur post history and see what u thought of Kiffen when the hire was made? Why should we believe anything u say when it's obvious that u have TALKED yourself into liking Lane kiffen?
Can we still see the norm chow thread you posted in?
Posted on 7/5/10 at 6:06 pm to Jamohn
quote:
The "luck" to which I was referring was not "luck" like you described "if Kiffin is successful that means he's luck, lol." I meant "luck" in a sense that USC would be lucky if Kiffin turns out to be a good coach.
True, but that would hold true for any coach. You were not clear on what you meant by "luck"
quote:
The fact remains that a program of USC's stature has no reason to take a hail mary on an unproven, loudmouthed, bombastic potential sanction libility.
I do not disagree with this. I am just of the opinion that he'll do great and I doubt USC is either.
quote:
Kiffin's antics energized the program, his questionable recruiting tactics brought an influx of talent, and suddenly the program was relevant again.
USC should be above that. Looking at the info in front of them and their situation, along w/ Kiffin's track record, the school made a BAD HIRE in that they shouldn't have to gamble on a guy like this, especially given their current situation in the NCAA doghouse.
He specifically stated he thought he needed to do those antics at UT to garner attention for the program. he stated he does not need to do that at SC. I guess we'll see if he does.
quote:
If you wanna purposely misinterpret that so you can mock it, go ahead. I won't respond.
You were not clear on what you meant my luck. Not purposeful on my part.
This post was edited on 7/5/10 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 7/5/10 at 6:07 pm to tigerguy121
quote:
Should we search ur post history and see what u thought of Kiffen when the hire was made? Why should we believe anything u say when it's obvious that u have TALKED yourself into liking Lane kiffen?
sure. I am/was of the OPINION he is going to do great at SC.
This post was edited on 7/5/10 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 7/5/10 at 6:51 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Why is Kiffin considered a bad hire
seems pretty simple to me
the aptitude of a hire is based on current face value...USC being considered one of the best programs of the decade going after a coach which has no outstanding college ball success, a limited and seemingly insufficient resume, and a tendency to throw caution to the wind when it comes to opening his mouth...will be perceived as a poor hire until his current face value changes...which means he will actually have to achieve some success
fortunately for him he was a package deal so the media can still talk about the solidness of the hire until he shits the bed or he proves everyone wrong
Posted on 7/5/10 at 6:53 pm to ThePoo
USC tried to get a better coach and none of them would go there because of the prospect of sanctions.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News