I Missed Something

When people object to how much college sports personnel like coaches and athletic directors and such get paid, a standard response says that they're being paid more because that's what it takes to get the best and brightest people in their fields into those positions.

OK.

So why is the University of Southern California going to pay money to a guy with a 12-21 career won-loss record as a head football coach? A guy who won one more game than he lost as a college coach and who lost three times as many games as he won as an NFL coach? A guy who in one season scored six secondary NCAA violations as well as a "letter of inquiry" from the organization, which is the polite and legalese way the NCAA uses to say "What the heck do you think you're doing?" A guy whose previous tenure at USC also made sure NCAA investigators could put food on their tables because of his recruiting methods. A guy who recruited thugs who couldn't keep on the straight and narrow long enough to make it to new student week. A guy who got called "immature" and a "liar" by Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis.

I'm finding it hard to figure out how USC will justify spending the dough on its new coach under the "pay more to get the best people" rubric. And I'm finding it even harder to figure out why they pay the athletic director who got them to hire him anything at all.