Ok, so why do fans of the Raiders, Vols and Trojans hate Kiffen so much? I am obviously not intimate with any of these programs, so I just have a very outsiders view, so I would be very interested to get an insider's perspective on what exactly what went wrong and why Kiffen is so horrible.

Raiders: I have no idea what happened here. To me, it looks like he just wasn't ready (at the age of 31?) for an NFL job (I mean who would be at that age and with that little experience). And then Al threw him under the bus. If its a fight between Al Davis v. Anyone, I'll tend to side with Anyone.

Tennessee: Started slow, but had some really good wins over top teams. Bought in a top recruiting class. Then bolted for SC just as Vol fans were warming up to him. Yes, he could've handled things better, but this also seems like something where Vol fans just overreacted because they are Vols fans and football is everything. I mean, how is this that different from Mooch? Were Cal fans burning **** in the streets when he left? He also had some minor recruiting violations here (which led to very minor penalties), but was found to have no major violations (this is a slight worry for me, but you gotta think he learned from his mistakes here)

SC: Had one 10-2 season and a couple really mediocre seasons (especially for SC standards), but this was during the probation era. So in my view, maybe a different coach could have done better with such heavy sanctions, but I still think Kiffen was unfairly made out to be the scapegoat for Petey's transgressions.

Again, I'm just looking at this from the outside, so someone please correct me. But, he's not the first one to get into a fight with Al Davis. And with the Vols and SC, those are just crazy fanbases that have impossible expectations. Especially the Vols fans who think they are football royalty, so they have a hissy fit when a coach leaves after 1 year cause Kiffen owes it to them for some reason to spend at least 3-4 years with them (even though he's offered his dream job)

Look, Kiffen said some stupid stuff along the way. Those minor recruiting violations weren't great either. But I have to believe he's learned from some of his mistakes now that he's older. But at every stop, he's been able to recruit. And he's had some successful seasons in some very bad circumstances.

I just don't see why some people make him out to be the devil.

I just put into Google " why is lane kiffin so hated?"

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2ciopy/why_does_everyone_dislike_lane_kiffin_so_much/

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/5-reasons-college-football-fans-hate-lane-kiffin

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/why-tennessee-fans-hate-lane-kiffin-100213

http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/most_hated_people_in_sports/lane_kiffin.html?state=stop

I think I had a read a few at some point...

ducky23;842770883 said:

---

I just don't see why some people make him out to be the devil.

---

There is a current trend in the United States to vilify and overly punish middle-aged, Caucasian males by any means necessary. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ulbricht.

TheSouseFamily;842770891 said:

---

---

:rollinglaugh::bravo

ducky23;842770883 said:

---

Ok, so why do fans of the Raiders, Vols and Trojans hate Kiffen so much? I am obviously not intimate with any of these programs, so I just have a very outsiders view, so I would be very interested to get an insider's perspective on what exactly what went wrong and why Kiffen is so horrible.

Raiders: I have no idea what happened here. To me, it looks like he just wasn't ready (at the age of 31?) for an NFL job (I mean who would be at that age and with that little experience). And then Al threw him under the bus. If its a fight between Al Davis v. Anyone, I'll tend to side with Anyone.

Tennessee: Started slow, but had some really good wins over top teams. Bought in a top recruiting class. Then bolted for SC just as Vol fans were warming up to him. Yes, he could've handled things better, but this also seems like something where Vol fans just overreacted because they are Vols fans and football is everything. I mean, how is this that different from Mooch? Were Cal fans burning **** in the streets when he left? He also had some minor recruiting violations here (which led to very minor penalties), but was found to have no major violations (this is a slight worry for me, but you gotta think he learned from his mistakes here)

SC: Had one 10-2 season and a couple really mediocre seasons (especially for SC standards), but this was during the probation era. So in my view, maybe a different coach could have done better with such heavy sanctions, but I still think Kiffen was unfairly made out to be the scapegoat for Petey's transgressions.

Again, I'm just looking at this from the outside, so someone please correct me. But, he's not the first one to get into a fight with Al Davis. And with the Vols and SC, those are just crazy fanbases that have impossible expectations. Especially the Vols fans who think they are football royalty, so they have a hissy fit when a coach leaves after 1 year cause Kiffen owes it to them for some reason to spend at least 3-4 years with them (even though he's offered his dream job)

Look, Kiffen said some stupid stuff along the way. Those minor recruiting violations weren't great either. But I have to believe he's learned from some of his mistakes now that he's older. But at every stop, he's been able to recruit. And he's had some successful seasons in some very bad circumstances.

I just don't see why some people make him out to be the devil.

---

1. I don't hate him. He sucks as a head coach.

2. With the Raiders - he knew he was taking a job with Al Davis, right? First of all, he sucked. He had no leadership and a was a cry baby. Then he essentially threw a tantrum and sabotaged the team and made it clear he was going to eff the whole team over until he got fired.

3. Tennessee - you'd have to ask somebody at Tennessee, but his first year was unimpressive. Then upon getting the SC job he and his staff went into their UT offices and started calling UT recruits to get them to flip their commits. You don't do that.

4. USC - don't know if or why they "hate" him, but he took over the dominant program Carroll had built and made it a 7-6 program and then got fired after losing his first two conference games the next year.

The question I have is why does everybody love Lane Kiffin? He was 5-15 with the Raiders. 7-6 with Tennessee and then dragged down USC. What has he done as a head coach to be worthy of any consideration? He's probably a good OC, but let me ask you what has he ever accomplished that he didn't do as an assistant to a head coach that was probably the best head college football coach in America at the time?

If the argument is that he had successful offenses at USC and Alabama, both of whom were successful before he got there, I have to question that as a major qualification.

Frankly, I'm hoping with all my heart Oregon hires him. Obviously one of us will be wrong about this.

I see him the same way I saw Lawrence Phillips as a running back. All the talk about hiring him because we forgive this or that in his personality or transgressions he has committed overlooks the fact that he has never been very good. To the point where you wonder if he would ever be considered if it weren't for the off the field issues.

TheSouseFamily;842770891 said:

---

---

Awesome!

To wit, I offer:

Daniel Tosh's portrayal of Lane Kiffin:



(Skip to 1:08 for the spoof.)

OaktownBear;842770915 said:

---

1. I don't hate him. He sucks as a head coach.

2. With the Raiders - he knew he was taking a job with Al Davis, right? First of all, he sucked. He had no leadership and a was a cry baby. Then he essentially threw a tantrum and sabotaged the team and made it clear he was going to eff the whole team over until he got fired.

3. Tennessee - you'd have to ask somebody at Tennessee, but his first year was unimpressive. Then upon getting the SC job he and his staff went into their UT offices and started calling UT recruits to get them to flip their commits. You don't do that.

4. USC - don't know if or why they "hate" him, but he took over the dominant program Carroll had built and made it a 7-6 program and then got fired after losing his first two conference games the next year.

The question I have is why does everybody love Lane Kiffin? He was 5-15 with the Raiders. 7-6 with Tennessee and then dragged down USC. What has he done as a head coach to be worthy of any consideration? He's probably a good OC, but let me ask you what has he ever accomplished that he didn't do as an assistant to a head coach that was probably the best head college football coach in America at the time?

If the argument is that he had successful offenses at USC and Alabama, both of whom were successful before he got there, I have to question that as a major qualification.

Frankly, I'm hoping with all my heart Oregon hires him. Obviously one of us will be wrong about this.

I see him the same way I saw Lawrence Phillips as a running back. All the talk about hiring him because we forgive this or that in his personality or transgressions he has committed overlooks the fact that he has never been very good. To the point where you wonder if he would ever be considered if it weren't for the off the field issues.

---

Raiders: Al Davis was going through a coach per year during this time. Its not like anyone was doing that much better before him or after. Plus, he was 31. I wouldn't want the 31 year old Kiffen right now either. I don't think his 5-15 with the freaking Raiders during that time disqualifies him for anything.

Tennessee: Tennessee was 5-7 the year before Kiffen took over. He immediately brought in a top 15 class and had impressive wins over S Carolina and Georgia. Had a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Tennessee was on an upward trajectory before he left. Which is why Tenn fans were so pissed when he left.

USC: SC was already in a decline when Kiffen took over. Carroll was 9-4 the year he left (which was by far his worst year). Kiffen was 8-5 the year after (only a 1 game difference) and then 10-2 the year after that. Year 3 was when the sanctions really started kicking in. Not sure how you can be blamed for having a down year when your program has so few scholarships.

-----
So why do I like Kiffen so much? I look for four things in a coach (in this order); Recruiting, Leadership/program management, coaching, ability to put together a staff.

Kiffen has already proved he can do 3 out of the 4. His main blemish is leadership/program builder. As of yet, he hasn't shown he can do that. The hope is that after 3 years under Saban, he has learned to do this. Yes, this is a hope. but show me another coach that Cal could conceivably get that has all four. Whoever we get, we are going to have to "hope" that they can do all four of these things.

ducky23;842770944 said:

---

Raiders: Al Davis was going through a coach per year during this time. Its not like anyone was doing that much better before him or after. Plus, he was 31. I wouldn't want the 31 year old Kiffen right now either. I don't think his 5-15 with the freaking Raiders during that time disqualifies him for anything.

Tennessee: Tennessee was 5-7 the year before Kiffen took over. He immediately brought in a top 15 class and had impressive wins over S Carolina and Georgia. Had a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Tennessee was on an upward trajectory before he left. Which is why Tenn fans were so pissed when he left.

USC: SC was already in a decline when Kiffen took over. Carroll was 9-4 the year he left (which was by far his worst year). Kiffen was 8-5 the year after (only a 1 game difference) and then 10-2 the year after that. Year 3 was when the sanctions really started kicking in. Not sure how you can be blamed for having a down year when your program has so few scholarships.

-----
So why do I like Kiffen so much? I look for four things in a coach (in this order); Recruiting, Leadership/program management, coaching, ability to put together a staff.

Kiffen has already proved he can do 3 out of the 4. His main blemish is leadership/program builder. As of yet, he hasn't shown he can do that. The hope is that after 3 years under Saban, he has learned to do this. Yes, this is a hope. but show me another coach that Cal could conceivably get that has all four. Whoever we get, we are going to have to "hope" that they can do all four of these things.

---

If we hire him, who's gonna chew his ass?

You!!!

ducky23;842770944 said:

---

Raiders: Al Davis was going through a coach per year during this time. Its not like anyone was doing that much better before him or after. Plus, he was 31. I wouldn't want the 31 year old Kiffen right now either. I don't think his 5-15 with the freaking Raiders during that time disqualifies him for anything.

Tennessee: Tennessee was 5-7 the year before Kiffen took over. He immediately brought in a top 15 class and had impressive wins over S Carolina and Georgia. Had a top 5 recruiting class coming in. Tennessee was on an upward trajectory before he left. Which is why Tenn fans were so pissed when he left.

USC: SC was already in a decline when Kiffen took over. Carroll was 9-4 the year he left (which was by far his worst year). Kiffen was 8-5 the year after (only a 1 game difference) and then 10-2 the year after that. Year 3 was when the sanctions really started kicking in. Not sure how you can be blamed for having a down year when your program has so few scholarships.

-----
So why do I like Kiffen so much? I look for four things in a coach (in this order); Recruiting, Leadership/program management, coaching, ability to put together a staff.

Kiffen has already proved he can do 3 out of the 4. His main blemish is leadership/program builder. As of yet, he hasn't shown he can do that. The hope is that after 3 years under Saban, he has learned to do this. Yes, this is a hope. but show me another coach that Cal could conceivably get that has all four. Whoever we get, we are going to have to "hope" that they can do all four of these things.

---

Regarding the Raiders - yes we went through a lot of coaches. So why do you think with all those coaches that Raider fans have a special dislike for Kiffin? I will tell you the guy left Al Davis no choice. He was acting like someone who wanted to get fired so he could collect unemployment. He was doing everything he could to get himself fired and that included hurting his own team. I don't care how young he was - what he did IMO disqualifies him from being the team's leader.

Regarding Tennessee - yeah, and they won 10 games the year before that. College football isn't linear.

Regarding USC - yeah and they won 7 straight conference championships immediately preceding that. 1 merely 9 win season out of 8 doesn't mean the program is going down the tubes. And your argument is inconsistent with the fact that he went from 10 wins with Pete's guys to 7-6 and then followed it up with a horrible start his last year. If the program was in a downward trajectory, that occurred under Kiffin.

You've made the classic mistake here, in my opinion. Rather than demonstrating a good record, you've argued why his at best pedestrian record maybe isn't as bad as it seems. So three stops and it is the problems that existed at each of those three, not Lane Kiffin. But is there any stop where he did well? No.

I'd suggest you read some of those links that 89 provided.

Basically, because he is Monte Kiffin's son, he got a Raider job he wasn't qualified for it did horribly. When he was hired people asked "what did he do to deserve this job?". He had two years as a co-offensive coordinator. After that, he got hired by Tennessee and people asked "what did he do at the Raiders to deserve this job?" Some people mumbled about it being Al Davis and not Kiffin's fault, but the bottom line is he wasn't qualified for the Tennessee job when he took the Raiders job and he did nothing with the Raiders to improve his qualifications. Then he went 7-6 at Tennessee and got the SC job and now he became a running joke as the guy who kept failing up. He was not qualified for the USC job and failed ending with getting fired on the plane.

So he recruited well at USC which a trained monkey could do. He had success as a co-offensive coordinator for 2 years coaching under maybe the best college coach at the time and essentially holding the steering wheel steady and letting them continue the offense they already had in place. He then had a 7 year coaching career where he got fired a third of the way into his final season not once but twice and the third location was 7-6. He recruited well at Tennessee, who always recruits well. Again at USC, who always recruits well. And now has recruited well at Alabama who always recruits well. He has done well as OC for three years under the best coach in America.

If all he had done was his co-OC stint at SC and his OC stint at Alabama, I'd say risky, but maybe. But he's had a shot at HC and done nothing spectacular. His USC stint was Gilbyesque if you factor in that at USC 7-6 is about the floor. You going to tell me he left USC better than he found it? Or the Raiders? If all that can be said is he didn't make the situation worse (I disagree with that statement, but okay) that is not a argument for hiring him. Basically, the guy has big names on his resume and little success.

This is all academic. Lane Kiffin will not be coaching at Cal.

TandemBear;842770932 said:

---

Awesome!

To wit, I offer:

Daniel Tosh's portrayal of Lane Kiffin:



(Skip to 1:08 for the spoof.)

---

Sark makes a special appearance in the latest krimson korner video @ 1:49:

Kiffin kicked our ass while coaching USC and any hate around here is just projection for our own shortcomings against him.

The arguments for Kiffin remind me of the arguments for Dykes. There's always excuses for each failing. Inherited bad apples, each individual transfer wasn't directly his fault, there were injuries, we had bad luck, blah blah blah bs bs bs. Same with Kiffin here. Nothing is his fault even though he was in charge. At some point doesn't all the consistent failure fall on the hands of the guy in charge who also is the single common factor in all of them?

I'll go with another angle. Remember how we occasionally hired assistants under Tedford that had failed elsewhere and had opposing fans mocking us for it? I think we got an OC like that, and Marshall sort of was as well. Those tended to not work out because it wasn't past circumstances, it was that the guys weren't very good coaches at this level. Similarly older Cal fans mocked UW for hiring Gilby while UW fans said Gilby failed because Cal. Then he cratered their program too. If Baylor really is considering Dykes then he's another one of these situations.

TandemBear;842770932 said:

---

Awesome!

To wit, I offer:

Daniel Tosh's portrayal of Lane Kiffin:



(Skip to 1:08 for the spoof.)

---

OMG, I was laughing so hard I started to cry. What a great spoof!

He wears a visor.

Jon Gruden is the last coach to wear one that I can remember actually liking. Every other visor wearer since has been... not likable.

ThesePretzels;842771012 said:

---

He wears a visor.

Jon Gruden is the last coach to wear one that I can remember actually liking. Every other visor wearer since has been... not likable.

---

This.

Strykur;842770993 said:

---

Kiffin kicked our ass while coaching USC and any hate around here is just projection for our own shortcomings against him.

---

As did PC and other HCs for other teams over the years... I don't dislike any one of those HCs for doing their jobs; and actually respect many of them.

LK has earned the reputation that precedes him...

boredom;842771005 said:

---

The arguments for Kiffin remind me of the arguments for Dykes. There's always excuses for each failing. Inherited bad apples, each individual transfer wasn't directly his fault, there were injuries, we had bad luck, blah blah blah bs bs bs. Same with Kiffin here. Nothing is his fault even though he was in charge. At some point doesn't all the consistent failure fall on the hands of the guy in charge who also is the single common factor in all of them?

I'll go with another angle. Remember how we occasionally hired assistants under Tedford that had failed elsewhere and had opposing fans mocking us for it? I think we got an OC like that, and Marshall sort of was as well. Those tended to not work out because it wasn't past circumstances, it was that the guys weren't very good coaches at this level. Similarly older Cal fans mocked UW for hiring Gilby while UW fans said Gilby failed because Cal. Then he cratered their program too. If Baylor really is considering Dykes then he's another one of these situations.

---

This is in response to both you and Oaktownbear. I hear what you're saying. but you have to concede, that Kiffin wasn't just in a bad situation, he was in historically bad situations. The Raiders job was easily the worst in the NFL at the time, I don't think that's even debateable. The Raiders at that time make the niners today look like the niners of the 80's.

I'd argue he did fine with Tennessee. He took a 5-7 team to a 7-5 team with two top recruiting classes. If Kiffen took us to 7-5 next year with two top recruiting classes, people here would be doing hand flips.

And for some reason, people are ignoring the fact that SC was under sanctions at the time (and he still won 10 games). Not just minor sanctions, some of the heaviest sanctions ever meted out by the NCAA. So c'mon, lets not compare his Raiders/SC situation to Dykes

----
I'll end with this. Kiffen is obviously a risk. But he has (in my opinion) the highest upside. You bring in Kiffen, you almost assuredly get Tosh. You get Tosh/Kiffen/hometown factor, you've got more than a decent shot at Najee (I've been hearing that Najee has tentatively scheduled an official visit at Cal - which would be his last visit- you telling me tosh/kiffen aren't going to close the kid).

So you get Najee and hopefully Hansen stays (plus you still have Drob). You arguably have the best RB and WR in the entire country. You get some healthy bodies back on defense, maybe add some Tosh recruits who can play immediately, and you have a 10 win team in YEAR 1. You going to tell me any other coach on anyone else's list has a better chance of getting a 10 win season in year 1. no sorry.

With Oregon and UCLA down and SC kinda down, Cal with Kiffen/Tosh could start recruiting like we used to.

Again, there's a ton of downside, and you don't hire a coach just cause you think he can deliver one player (although he's a once in a lifetime player). But you at least interview the dude because of his upside.

ducky23;842771039 said:

---

This is in response to both you and Oaktownbear. I hear what you're saying. but you have to concede, that Kiffin wasn't just in a bad situation, he was in historically bad situations. The Raiders job was easily the worst in the NFL at the time, I don't think that's even debateable. The Raiders at that time make the niners today look like the niners of the 80's.

I'd argue he did fine with Tennessee. He took a 5-7 team to a 7-5 team with two top recruiting classes. If Kiffen took us to 7-5 next year with two top recruiting classes, people here would be doing hand flips.

And for some reason, people are ignoring the fact that SC was under sanctions at the time (and he still won 10 games). Not just minor sanctions, some of the heaviest sanctions ever meted out by the NCAA. So c'mon, lets not compare his Raiders/SC situation to Dykes

----
I'll end with this. Kiffen is obviously a risk. But he has (in my opinion) the highest upside. You bring in Kiffen, you almost assuredly get Tosh. You get Tosh/Kiffen/hometown factor, you've got more than a decent shot at Najee (I've been hearing that Najee has tentatively scheduled an official visit at Cal - which would be his last visit- you telling me tosh/kiffen aren't going to close the kid).

So you get Najee and hopefully Hansen stays (plus you still have Drob). You arguably have the best RB and WR in the entire country. You get some healthy bodies back on defense, maybe add some Tosh recruits who can play immediately, and you have a 10 win team in YEAR 1. You going to tell me any other coach on anyone else's list has a better chance of getting a 10 win season in year 1. no sorry.

With Oregon and UCLA down and SC kinda down, Cal with Kiffen/Tosh could start recruiting like we used to.

Again, there's a ton of downside, and you don't hire a coach just cause you think he can deliver one player (although he's a once in a lifetime player). But you at least interview the dude because of his upside.

---

I like the cut of your jib.

ducky23;842771039 said:

---

I'll end with this. Kiffen is obviously a risk. But he has (in my opinion) the highest upside. You bring in Kiffen, you almost assuredly get Tosh. You get Tosh/Kiffen/hometown factor, you've got more than a decent shot at Najee (I've been hearing that Najee has tentatively scheduled an official visit at Cal - which would be his last visit- you telling me tosh/kiffen aren't going to close the kid).

So you get Najee and hopefully Hansen stays (plus you still have Drob). You arguably have the best RB and WR in the entire country. You get some healthy bodies back on defense, maybe add some Tosh recruits who can play immediately, and you have a 10 win team in YEAR 1. You going to tell me any other coach on anyone else's list has a better chance of getting a 10 win season in year 1. no sorry.

With Oregon and UCLA down and SC kinda down, Cal with Kiffen/Tosh could start recruiting like we used to.

Again, there's a ton of downside, and you don't hire a coach just cause you think he can deliver one player (although he's a once in a lifetime player). But you at least interview the dude because of his upside.

---

:beer:

Because he's so unstable. Last guy we need.

Kiffin for President.

Kiffin would probably do very well at Cal. He's an asshole to the nth degree and the team probably needs that because there are so many weak personalities in the AD, but he'd probably leave the second someone better offered a head coaching job. Of that whole tree, i think the Wilcox and Tosh combo is probably better than Kiffin. Fleck better than that, not on the tree but just saying.

I could definitely see him telling the people like barsky and ohare and Nanette Asimov to shove it. I sort of think a problem is that Dykes and Williams are too nice and transparent with these people that want nothing but to harm the program and have managed to do so under their watch.

Kif can coach. Theres a reason why he's employed by the best.

ducky23;842771039 said:

---

This is in response to both you and Oaktownbear. I hear what you're saying. but you have to concede, that Kiffin wasn't just in a bad situation, he was in historically bad situations. The Raiders job was easily the worst in the NFL at the time, I don't think that's even debateable. The Raiders at that time make the niners today look like the niners of the 80's.

I'd argue he did fine with Tennessee. He took a 5-7 team to a 7-5 team with two top recruiting classes. If Kiffen took us to 7-5 next year with two top recruiting classes, people here would be doing hand flips.

And for some reason, people are ignoring the fact that SC was under sanctions at the time (and he still won 10 games). Not just minor sanctions, some of the heaviest sanctions ever meted out by the NCAA. So c'mon, lets not compare his Raiders/SC situation to Dykes

----
I'll end with this. Kiffen is obviously a risk. But he has (in my opinion) the highest upside. You bring in Kiffen, you almost assuredly get Tosh. You get Tosh/Kiffen/hometown factor, you've got more than a decent shot at Najee (I've been hearing that Najee has tentatively scheduled an official visit at Cal - which would be his last visit- you telling me tosh/kiffen aren't going to close the kid).

So you get Najee and hopefully Hansen stays (plus you still have Drob). You arguably have the best RB and WR in the entire country. You get some healthy bodies back on defense, maybe add some Tosh recruits who can play immediately, and you have a 10 win team in YEAR 1. You going to tell me any other coach on anyone else's list has a better chance of getting a 10 win season in year 1. no sorry.

With Oregon and UCLA down and SC kinda down, Cal with Kiffen/Tosh could start recruiting like we used to.

Again, there's a ton of downside, and you don't hire a coach just cause you think he can deliver one player (although he's a once in a lifetime player). But you at least interview the dude because of his upside.

---

I can't present a realistic scenario of another coach winning 10 games at Cal next year to match your complete fantasy scenario that Kiffin wins 10 games next year. There is no way Kiffin wins 10 games at Cal next year. Fantasy is not upside. It seems like because you think he can pull the same recruiting at Cal that he has at Alabama and USC that he can do anything. I've seen him coach. Week after week. He is not winning 10 games next year at Cal.

I'm not even going to argue again how much he sucked previously because you are constructing a whole argument that is all based on what was wrong with the Raiders or USC. As long as you can argue what he has done "not wrong" you can keep equating that to what he has done right. Once you have to argue that he has done something right, the only thing you have is that he won 10 games with Petey's recruits right before imploding the program.

Yes, sanctions. He still had the best talent in the conference and imploded. He's had 3 employers as head coach. Two kicked him to the curb with much prejudice part way through a season and both seemed to really enjoy doing it. The other named a water treatment facility after him. You acknowledge everyone hates him. You ask why and people tell you. I think the fact is that you've concocted this 10 win fantasy in your mind and you don't want to let go of it, so instead of recognizing that when "everyone" hates one guy, it is usually not "everyone's" fault but that there is probably an issue with the guy, you are doing gymnastics to keep the dream alive.

1. Somebody better than Cal will be moron number 4 to give him a chance. He won't come here
2. Cal isn't going to ask. No matter how much people think Cal shouldn't be picky about these things, Cal will never see Kiffin as a fit.
3. If somehow he got hired at Cal his head would explode dealing with Cal. I'd expect a repeat of his throwing a season to get fired as I saw in Oakland.

Fantasy over. You might as well come to the conclusion that he is a dickhead.

Lane Kiffin was right about Jamarcus Russell. So he's got that going for him.

SacBear87;842771007 said:

---

OMG, I was laughing so hard I started to cry. What a great spoof!

---

Go to Redonkulous Bear's video. A GREAT follow up!

Ahhh, good stuff.

And you nailed it ThesePretzles, it's the visor! That's definitely it!

I like the cut of his glib.

CAL6371;842771207 said:

---

I like the cut of his glib.

---

Booth.

Kiffin is a great recruiter, a great talent evaluator, and a great offensive coordinator. He is a crap leader. Nothing wrong with any of that - it is just how it is.

As far as SC goes, he did get screwed there by the talent that was evaporating, and he held the bag for that. I don't care who you are - losing a third of your team hurts.

But I would not want him as the leader of the team. Leadership requires sacrifice and I doubt that he understands that.

ducky23;842771039 said:

---

This is in response to both you and Oaktownbear. I hear what you're saying. but you have to concede, that Kiffin wasn't just in a bad situation, he was in historically bad situations. The Raiders job was easily the worst in the NFL at the time, I don't think that's even debateable. The Raiders at that time make the niners today look like the niners of the 80's.

I'd argue he did fine with Tennessee. He took a 5-7 team to a 7-5 team with two top recruiting classes. If Kiffen took us to 7-5 next year with two top recruiting classes, people here would be doing hand flips.

And for some reason, people are ignoring the fact that SC was under sanctions at the time (and he still won 10 games). Not just minor sanctions, some of the heaviest sanctions ever meted out by the NCAA. So c'mon, lets not compare his Raiders/SC situation to Dykes

----
I'll end with this. Kiffen is obviously a risk. But he has (in my opinion) the highest upside. You bring in Kiffen, you almost assuredly get Tosh. You get Tosh/Kiffen/hometown factor, you've got more than a decent shot at Najee (I've been hearing that Najee has tentatively scheduled an official visit at Cal - which would be his last visit- you telling me tosh/kiffen aren't going to close the kid).

So you get Najee and hopefully Hansen stays (plus you still have Drob). You arguably have the best RB and WR in the entire country. You get some healthy bodies back on defense, maybe add some Tosh recruits who can play immediately, and you have a 10 win team in YEAR 1. You going to tell me any other coach on anyone else's list has a better chance of getting a 10 win season in year 1. no sorry.

With Oregon and UCLA down and SC kinda down, Cal with Kiffen/Tosh could start recruiting like we used to.

Again, there's a ton of downside, and you don't hire a coach just cause you think he can deliver one player (although he's a once in a lifetime player). But you at least interview the dude because of his upside.

---

10 wins? Against whom are we going to beat with a brand new experience less qb?

I imagine most would say that JT, Harbaugh and Kelly were some the best Pac-12 HCs over the past decade. Neither achieved 10 wins in their first seasons.

burritos;842771283 said:

---

10 wins? Against whom are we going to beat with a brand new experience less qb?

---

You mean Blake Barnett?

ducky23;842771294 said:

---

You mean Blake Barnett?

---

LOL

at least he wouldn't be a 5th year grad xfer

Show me where I said cal would absolutely win 10 games with kiffen. I said kiffen is the only one who conceivably could.

It's very simple. Kiffen is the only candidate who could possibly help deliver Najee. You get Najee, any thing is possible.