USC should have fired Dan Hubbs two-or-three years ago. It did not because it was too cheap to pay off one dollar of his contract before it expired June 30.
With that in mind, it was surprising to see some of the reaction Wednesday to Hubbs’ departure.
Here is the Los Angeles Times: “(Lynn) Swann’s decision is a clear sign that USC intends to restore the tradition of college baseball’s winningest program.”
And if you scan the Internet, some USC fanboys and out-of-touch pundits are promising USC will hire a big-time coach.
How is USC letting Hubbs’ contract expire after seven years a sign of anything other than Swann being way-too-slow to make a change? Is the bar for Swann so low that when he does even the most basic job functions, it is viewed as a massive signal of intent?
Where is there any proof USC will pursue a star coach?
In 2013, Pat Haden offered UCLA coach John Savage between $750,000-900,000 to return to USC.
But remember this:
- When USC hired Mick Haley as its women’s volleyball coach, he was the coach of the 2000 Olympic team. When it fired Haley in 2018, it replaced him with the University of Portland coach.
- When USC hired a new women’s tennis coach, it was from Division III Williams College in Massachusetts.
I hope baseball is different. I initially said USC should call former Oregon State coach Pat Casey, who won three NCAA titles and made six trips to the College World Series.
The early names to surface are from the Big West Conference (UC Santa Barbara coach Andrew Checketts) or assistant coaches (TCU hitting coach Bill Mosiello). You can make a good hire from these ranks.
But don’t talk about Swann’s intent or “going big.” He isn’t even running the search and will just rubber stamp whoever his subortinates recommend. And I’m already hearing Oregon is likely to offer more money to Checketts than USC.
Going big? Hmmm.