[Updated] Todd McNair No Longer on Staff
by Joey Kaufman on Jul 1, 2010 3:03 PM PDT
in USC Football
Email
Print
Well, it's about time. The guy who allegedly had full knowledge of Reggie Bush's relationship with Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels, leading to the NCAA placing the USC football program on 4-years probation will no longer be on the university's payroll according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Yes, that's correct. USC running backs Todd McNair, who has been a fixture coaching the USC backfield for the past six years, will no longer be roaming the sidelines for the Trojans in the coming years. Per the initial report from the Times:
Todd McNair, who was USC's running backs coach for the last six seasons and a key figure in the the NCAA's investigation of the school's athletic department, is no longer part of the staff.
"Todd McNair's contract expired on June 30, 2010," Coach Lane Kiffin said. "We have no additional comment."
McNair has not been in USC's coaching offices since the NCAA handed down sanctions against USC that include four years' probation, a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 30 scholarships over three years.
As part of the sanctions, McNair was forbidden from contacting recruits.
I can't say that any of this is incredibly surprising to begin with. Sources indicate that McNair had not been in Heritage Hall since the NCAA sanctions were handed down in early June, and he had not been made available to the media either. Something was clearly in the works.
Granted, whether the evidence the NCAA used is sufficient or not, it's difficult to argue that the link between McNair and Bush did not place the current coaching staff in an awkward position. In turn, it's easy to understand why he was out of the office for most of June, and now out of a job.
McNair was featured extensively in the original NCAA report, and moving forward, it's hard to argue that if USC at least wants to maintain a better image in the public eye than it was going to have to attend to a few internal matters. That means expanding its compliance office, limiting access to outside influences, and cutting those with alleged ties to Bush loose. Unfortunately for McNair, that means him.
Granted McNair has tons of recruiting ties throughout the Southland, but moving forward, it's hard to argue that Kiffin didn't make the correct decision in letting McNair walk. In the end, it's probably better for both sides.
Update #1
"USC's appeal of the NCAA's ruling includes an appeal of the findings and sanctions related to Mr. McNair."
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Its not good
that he wouldn’t be able to recruit. Changing the RB coach removes that bit of the sanctions from the equation.
I think recruiting is the nub.
A position coach needs to be able to recruit, particularly in the post-sanctions world.
Honestly he wasn't the best of RB coaches anyway
That said, this clears his path to sue the NCAA and big. Not that the NCAA will care, even a large suit will still be small to them. However McNair will be able to get his pound of flesh and maybe his good name back. Fight on Todd.
by ev on Jul 1, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Coach Mc is a victim
I bet this was an amicable split. Coach Mc should realize that the NCAA gave USC almost no choice but to not renew, and he now is perfectly lined up to work in parallel with USC via litigation against the NCAA.
After reading McNair’s NCAA response, he was victimized. Sure, he had a checkered past and was in the wrong place at the wrong times. But, the NCAA totally raped Coach Mc. Coach Mc was a key cog on the staff during one of the greatest CFB runs of all time. I wish Coach Mc nothing but the best of luck in the future, and he is clean in my book. Fight on, Coach Mc!
by DFWTrojan on Jul 1, 2010 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Glad somebody raised this point
Has there been a position group at USC other than WR that has underachieved more than the running backs? I don’t know that ‘SC has really had a dominant RB since Bush and White in ’05. McKnight, Bradford, Gable, Washington, and to an extent Stafon, have not lived up to the billing. Not saying that it’s McNair’s fault, but I’ve never felt that we’ve gotten the most out of our RBs.
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
This is a shame.
McNair is a very good coach and a great recruiter. He was a great person to be around and gave his own positive spin to the program under Pete.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
I thought he was an average coach but a tremendous recruiter...
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Maybe I’m biased because I like him personally, but he had more pure charisma than anybody else on Pete’s staff, and gave Pete himself a run for his money in that department.
He was an ace recruiter and motivator and there really isn’t as much technique involved for an RB coach as there is for some other positions. But he is a good teacher of technique as well. I don’t think another position coach would have done better over the past few years.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
Agree with Phil
the entire offense really underperformed since Kiff and Chow left, not just the RBs. I think McNair is an excellent coach and will probably not be out of a job long. Bet he’s hired within 90 days of the completion of his NCAA lawsuit.
On the mark there
McNair never had the reputation around ‘SC for being a top-level coach. He wasn’t bad by any means, but nobody felt he was anything extra special in terms of player instruction.
However, recruiting is a different story. He was one of the best at helping Carroll reel in top running backs after top running backs. It’s no coincidence that ’SC would have at least 1-2 RBs in every class. In 2006, they signed Johnson, Bradford, Moody, Gable, and the next year they still brought in McKnight, Tyler, etc. RB was a position that was always stacked.
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
by Joey Kaufman on Jul 2, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Running backs don’t need as much instruction as players at most other positions, since you can’t coach fast. Nobody ever really stands out as an RB coach.
McNair made a huge contribution in not just pulling in so many quality running backs but in keeping them comparitively happy. Yeah, we lost a few like Moody, but the depth in the “stable” really was amazing over the last few years. And from what I saw McNair and his style and personality were a key factor in keeping those guys on the same page. Remember you are dealing with very highly recruited guys who play in the spotlight. Keeping those groups together is an accomplishment not to be underestimated.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
This is good but not for the reasons you may think.
The COI cost McNair his job and his reputation. Since he was banned from recruiting, he is not eligible to be employed in college football, making it easy for him to prove damages. Remember the multi-millon dollar settlement won by Neuheisel against the same NCAA.
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
That was for wrongful termination not the NCAA infractions...that is a big difference
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Nope
He wasn’t terminated, his contract ended and he was not re-hired. Big difference.
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
Sorry, I mean McNair’s contract ended. You are right, Skippy was wrongfully terminated but it was because of the pressure the NCAA brought to bear on Washington. In both cases the NCAA was pulling the strings.
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
I'm with Agrippa on this
This development is exactly what I’m talking about, as it applies to “leveraging litigation” against a potential lawsuit(s) against the NCAA.
We’ve got to come at them on all sides. We’ve got to “push back”, have them on the balls of their feet. Attacking in this position gives many angles with which to strike. Forcing them to defend against numerous fronts, and waiting for weaknesses in their attempts at guessing our strongest position(s)- going in for the kill when they guess wrong.
If our “offense” looks to formidable, you can be sure they’ll fold and elect to submit rather than being exposed and suffer from dangerous attacks. At times, is best to do this (settle)- especially if you sincerely want to continue to “walk away from a fight” intact.
Trust me, it’s worth it. I’ll never understand why someone/something consciously chooses to endure the pain and suffering of continuing a fight, despite knowing that losing is the sure outcome and “walking, eating, talking, and smiling” will never, ever be the same again for them. I’ll gladly prove and see the outcome through in battle, and won’t lose concentration to that end- however in the aftermath, I’m always perplexed by such folly.
“Leveraged litigation” and “aggressive PR” are crucial to USC, if we’re to reach our desired goal of achieving “fairness” in this matter. The NCAA is wrong to believe our beloved country, indeed- or our NCAA membership requirements are beholden to perceptions of “justice”. Afterall, we don’t have “Courts of Justice” in this free society of ours, we have “COURTS OF LAW”.
Did USC inadvertently breach certain aspects of NCAA bylaws and compliance? Yes, but that has never been in dispute. But if it is asked, “did USC consciously and capriciously disregard said breaches?” Then my answer to that would be, "No! No way, and as a matter of fact- that question would be better suited on the matters of “due process”, and “adherence and interpretation” of the very organizational body convening judgment against us.
This whole investigation and sanctions stemming from it has a theme that just screams: IRONY. To wit: the NCAA, in their written response for their reasons on how they assessed penalty and sanction upon our beloved USC, they expressed and acted (as a whole) exactly the opposite. This applies in collection of evidence, interpretation of said evidence, witness credibility, sworn testimony, panel procedure and fidelity to said procedures and panel conduct, and a complete disregard to honor it’s very own stated mission of equality and fairness. And they said USC did what exactly? Acted how again? “Lacked” what?
They are fucked, BUT. . . . . . . .we have to frame this properly, and prepare many individual aspects of circumstances strategically- in force them to see things our way. They must be carefully directed, not unlike a child, in all matters pertaining to this investigation- from this point forward. We mustn’t fail to lose sight of our goal. And use all available means of recourse to reach our goal. And never. . . .EVER . . . .show mercy until it’s behind us.
"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}
by BixBeiderbecke on Jul 1, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Rock and a hard place...
With his contract up and with his one year ban from recruiting ‘SC really didn’t have a choice.
This also gives McNair a clear field fire towards the NCAA should he choose to sue. Still being at USC would have made that difficult. This also helps with the appeal…keeping McNair around would make things difficult in their appeal.
It is a bit of PR hit but a win/win if read between the lines…
I would not be surprised if Garrett is next…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Agree 110%
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
Now McNair CAN'T go after USC for wrongful termination
This is actually brilliant! He can only go after the NCAA. Can we say “strategic plan?”
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
do I make myself clear?
Still being employed at USC would have meant McNair could only file a defamation suit
Now he can file one claiming the NCAA is keeping him from being employed. Huge difference in size and much easier to win.
by ev on Jul 1, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
The FBI is gathering evidence
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
Rock and a hard place...
With his contract up and with his one year ban from recruiting ‘SC really didn’t have a choice.
This also gives McNair a clear field fire towards the NCAA should he choose to sue. Still being at USC would have made that difficult. This also helps with the appeal…keeping McNair around would make things difficult in their appeal.
It is a bit of PR hit but a win/win if read between the lines…
I would not be surprised if Garrett is next…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
You can say that again!
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
All in good time young Jedi!
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
Garrett
He’s around through the appeal period, at least, I suspect.
How would take the job now? Anyway, it’s his mess to clean up.
Not that she's all that...
but Lisa Love would take it in a heartbeat and still would be a major upgrade.
Still LOCO after all these years
All hail Augustus Kiffin!
M·AGRIPPA·L·F·COS·TERTIVM·FECIT
I will take it
So Fight On USC followers and Don’t worry WE Will Still Play on Saturdays and Bowls will come later, for WE ARE SC not That other Softball University. Oh and don’t say you now have a baseball team, it’s not Real Baseball unless you use Wooden Bats.
by so.cal.native1952 on Jul 2, 2010 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
