Ya know, I'm starting to wonder if college football isn't changing when it comes to coaching hires. It seems you can hire a coach who "BECOMES" the program, as in it's the University of Kiffin, and the program is as good as the coach as long as the coach is there. OR you can build a program around a philosophy and hire coaches to the philosophy.
It just seems the transient nature of college coaches goes with the flash and done records as well. Look at USC they were very tough with Pete Carroll, they weren't that good before him and they haven't but that great since he left.
What do you guys think?
No, not necessarily. Lucky enough for UT we didn't have that pompous D-bag around that long so it didn't hurt us as much as it could have has he stayed longer. We never became the "University of Kiffin" so to speak. And for a great reason. I have no doubt by now our program would have been on suspension or faced multiple recruiting and other violations. And honestly, I don't think USC has become the "UoK" either.
I think a good coach can win no matter where he happens to be as long as he brings in recruits and has the foundation of winning. Sure, they bring in his little quirks that are unique to their style, but the program either rises or falls on their ability to recruit and put that talent to work as well as having or building a base of tradition of winning. Lou Holtz is a classic example. Did great at Notre Dame and set the foundation for Carolina to become a powerhouse in the SEC East. While I give Spurrier mad credit for keeping USCe in contention with the rest of the SEC, it was Holtz that built that program. Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Bob Stoops, et al are other examples that have either brought programs into national level contention or kept them there.
Kiffin is not a name I would associate with building a program or keeping it in National Championship contention. He can recruit like mad, coaches at a school that could/should be mopping up the entire left coast. But fails miserably with his on field antics and lack of ability as a head coach.
I believe the school's tradition combined with recruiting and adding in the coaching staff are the critical elements. And of the three, it's easiest to replace a coach. To replace your tradition as a National Championship contender? Not so easy. Once your program looses that element of being a traditional powerhouse in their conference or on a national stage, it's hard to get back. Take Pittsburgh for example. Or Colorado. Both teams that were once feared programs on the field, but have since slipped into mediocrity.
Recruiting, somewhat easy depending on your location. Kids start looking at schools based on location and tradition. It's natural for any star athlete in high school ball to look at their home state's school first provided that team has a traditional base of building winners. Kids from Tennessee will think about running at the head of the line through the T. Nebraska kids want to get recruited by the Huskers first and think of catching that Hail Mary pass for the win. A 4 star linebacker from Michigan will probably want to wear the blue and gold and hopes to put a hurting on OSU's quarterback in the Big 10 Championship game. They don't always end up signing with those teams, especially the highly ranked and recruited ones, but the majority will look into their home states first. The programs I listed above? None had been in NC contention for quite some time. But all three still achieve good recruiting classes based on the traditions of the school and how sweet the recruiters talk to them.
Kiffin is missing one key element. He has a school with a great tradition of fielding good teams. He has recruiting out the wazzu. But he cannot perform on the field and put that talent to work. And this is why USC sucks so bad right now.