Look, Lynn Swann actually signed autographs (and photos) in 1973. But this was before he went to the Steelers and won four Super Bowls and became much too important for everyone.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
InsideUSC with Scott Wolf 
Wow he sure looks surprised to see that football coming at him. And the golf ball hairdo fits his future self.
LikeLike
Looks like an athletic director
LikeLike
Carol Folt can establish herself quickly by eliminating this nonsense.
LikeLike
There doesnt seem to be any downside for Folt in firing Swann. Noone thinks the guy is a wonderful guy or a hard worker, and his results are horrible. Easiest move is to fire Swann and bring in someone new to turn around the whole department. Seems like this would be a first big move to make. They probably already have a search for the replacement going, so they can fire Swann and bring someone on board quickly.
Tell me that the SC athletic department AD position is not one of the best jobs in the country, if not the best. Top notch university. Located in LA, easy recruiting to alot of top local athletes. Just waiting for someone to come in and clean up the mess.
LikeLike
Swann going to golf tournaments doesn’t bother me in the least bit. He was brought in as a fund raiser. To do that he has to hob nob around the country.
As for changes with the USC football program (firings, new hirings, bringing in referees to practices, changing the offensive scheme to air-raid to better match the talent level especially of the O-line), those changes apparently were imposed on Helton by Swann. So I give Swann credit there.
Swann apparently couldn’t fire Helton due to budget limitations of having to buy out Helton’s contract (which never should have been consummated anyway). You can’t give a football coach tenure if he is to be competitive. So the bad contractual arrangement with Helton is on Swann.
The scholarship scandal is a nothing burger to me. Private schools should have the freedom to bring in who they want and if they can also raise extra funding all the more power to them. That certain individuals on staff we enriching themselves in the process is a separate issue. I see nothing wrong with it if these were considered commissions for fund raising and were openly known to the administration. But did USC have to keep such a fund raising scheme covert to avoid stupid and duplicitous NCAA sanctions that are meant for public universities? USC isn’t a public utility that has to be regulated for every paper clip they buy or bonus pay they give out. Or is it once USC has Title 9 obligations imposed on them? Does Title 9 give government to right to regulate how USC raises funds or pays commissions? Title 9 is socialism of college sports – it wants every program equal in every way. But then that would convert private universities to public utilities.
LikeLike