Scratching their heads ...

... over Hello Kiffin's "salary":

David Fox's answer:
Nothing about Lane Kiffin surprises me anymore, not even an undeserved salary. Everything around Kiffin seems to be an extension of college football excesses and absurdities; why would his salary been the exception? And let's face it: USC's athletic department hasn't consistently made good decisions when it comes to their coaches (see: Floyd, Tim). I understand Monte Kiffin being one of the top-paid coordinators. He's a proven coach with a long track record, even though most of it is in the NFL. I just don't get Lane's salary, especially when you consider he'll be paid on par with guys who have been national championship coaches. But, hey, this is free market and USC is free to pay Kiffin what it pleases. Good for Lane for turning his limited coaching experience into a big payday. [...]

Steve Megargee's answer:
I don't have any problem with coaches making $4 million a year, but I do believe that salary should be given to coaches with more of a track record than Kiffin. Frankly, I still don't know whether Kiffin's a good coach, though it's tough to argue with his recruiting acumen. Kiffin deserves plenty of credit for Jonathan Crompton's improvement last season, and he also made Tennessee surprisingly competitive against Alabama and Florida. But the Vols also lost at home to UCLA and got trounced by Virginia Tech in the Chick-fil-A Bowl. Their final record of 7-6 was about what we expected from Tennessee before the season. I'm still not quite sure why USC hired him, let alone gave him $4 million per year.

Read other college football analysts' befuddled take on the clown show from crosstown right here.


This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

In This FanPost


Trending Discussions