Ranking The Coaches
I asked a USC history expert where Larry Smith would be considered among the school's coaches.
Here's one opinion: ``USC has had Great Coaches, such as Howard Jones, John McKay, and Pete Carroll. It has had Good Coaches, such as Elmer Henderson, and John Robinson (first stint). And it has had what might be called transitional coaches, who had a few key wins (almost always including a Rose Bowl, at least), but ultimately fell short of the standards set by the Great Coaches, and were dismissed. Think Don Clark (although no Rose Bowl victory), Ted Tollner (Rose Bowl victory over Ohio State), John Robinson (second stint), and Larry Smith. Then there is the Paul Hackett level.''
Why would you post this the day after the man's death? I am a recent graduate so I had no experience with the Larry Smith era, but why would you not celebrate the man's life? Why would you remember him, with this post, as a man who could not live up to the standards set by others?
Maybe you didn't mean for your post to sound cold, but that's how it came off.
Nice sentiment from MARINsur4. Journalists are not usually known by the size of their hearts, and I am sure Wolfie would agree.
But back to Coach Smith, there were some nice articles elsewhere about the man's life. He was a football man through and through, coaching for 50 years. He loved to teach and to encourage young men to take up the sport. He had a good soul.
It's strange how people automatically gain sainthood in a lot of paople's eyes when they die.That's not the way it works. Dying doesn't change what you were. If it did, we'd celebrate Hitler's birthday ! Larry Smith had an agenda other than making USC the national power it once was. He was a part of the Tolner / Smith / Hackett era, which was a dismal time for USC football.Sorry guys, I've got to go with SW on this one. Larry Smith was a mediocre head coach, at best.
lhcjoe, i agree. I lived through what I call "the dark times" Tollner/Smith/Hackett era. There was no joy in USC football during that period. And it was due to leadership (or lack thereof).
I wasn't born until long after Larry Smith stopped coaching. It doesn't matter whether he was great or horrible, there is no reason to cast a negative shadow over a fallen man. If Paul Hackett died it would it be ok to say, "Who cares he was a crappy coach?" No. Its called respect Scott, look it up.
Aside from the damning Freedom Bowl loss to Fresno State, I recall most of Smith's 'SC teams to be entertaining and competitive.
Fight On, Lar!
Some of the above comments are a primary reason I usually ignore all comments. I wrote a positive experience I had with Larry Smith when I was a student the day he died. I then asked a historian of USC football today to rank Smith among USC's coaches. He placed Smith in a group called ``transitional coaches,'' which included John Robinson (second stint). That's disrespectful? Does it ``cast a negative shadow?'' Only in some of the small minds above.
Respect? Not for some of the above negative comments
Dear Mr. Wolf:
Since I know you will see if anybody responded to your negative comments from last night, this note is from one of the "small minds" who you do not "respect." Yes, that was a sweet story you told of Coach Smith, but we were commenting on the ranking article and its timing. If you were eulogizing Coach Smith would you say that he was not a great SC coach, not even a good coach, but was a transitional coach?
And since we have your momentary attention, you do seem to have an addiction for SC negative news. Sometimes sarcasm is funny, but not as a steady diet. We don't need a homer such as Brian Dohn (although a decent man), but a little more mainstream would be nice. Speaking of which, how the Hell you like them Trojan basketball players this year?
Why didn't you just ask your "history expert" (anonymous, of course), to iist the former coaches who won the most NC? Any of the "small minds" that read this blog, myself included, can read the USC media guide, and come up with this list. When you heard the "spin" this "expert" presented, you did not have to print it. Don't know if the above reply is from SW, but the "RANKING THE COACHES" comment was ill-timed.
"... ultimately fell short of the standards set by the Great Coaches" That is not necessarily disrespectful, I just meant that I found it in poor taste the day after Larry Smith's passing. I don't understand why that question would illicit you attacking your readers and saying we are small-minded. No one attacked you, we questioned your merit and class with regards to said posting. I did not say you needed to be praising him as a fallen messiah, but acknowledge that some who read your blog my have been close with him.