Quantcast

Lane Kiffin’s Sour Grapes?

Lost in the shuffle last week because of Super Bowl hype and the news that Lane Kiffin received a commitment from 13-year-old quarterback David Sills, was another dumb comment by Kiffin. As LBS contributor Botros reminded me, Kiffin had this to say last week about UCLA recruits:

“I watched it over the weekend, just to see if it’s the same, and it’s really still the same,” he said. “I guess we waste time continuing to recruit them. We know within the first 10 minutes whether they’re the type of guys that want to play here or there.”

First of all, when Kiffin was working at USC last time Karl Dorrell was the coach in Westwood and he allowed the Trojans to take their pick of top recruits in So Cal like they were Neil Patrick Harris walking into a brothel. This time around it’s Rick Neuheisel coaching the Bruins — someone who lives for recruiting and has no qualms about stealing your recruit nor your wife. In other words, times are completely different now and Kiffin’s words sound solely like sour grapes coming from a man who saw a few top recruits choose UCLA over USC — not the way it was supposed to be (or used to happen). I’m not about to gloat over UCLA winning a few recruiting battles. Only time will tell if those really were victories for the program because most of player development depends on coaching. Neuheisel and Chow have a pretty good track record of maximizing talent. Pete Carroll was legendary for his abilities. Ed Orgeron was a flop. Lane Kiffin? I have a good reason to believe his results will not match his mouth.



Around The Web

  • JS

    At least Kiffin isn’t taking out ads in the local fishwraps proclaiming the football monopoly in Los Angeles is officially still on. Want to talk about results not matching the mouth?

    Larry, if you want to join the rest of the media bashing Kiffin for doing what 95% of the other coaches do, fine. Bashing him as a loyal Bruin only shows you can be a hypocrite. I know you’re better than that.

  • http://larrybrownsports.com Larry Brown

    I criticized Neuheisel and UCLA for the brash act when he took the job and I’m still waiting to see results from them. I’m just still trying to figure out what Kiffin meant with his comment considering he was recruiting those players. That makes me think he was just bitter over losing them.

  • JS

    I remembered today that you got on Neuheisel, my bad.

    Here’s the thing, a lot of coaches sour grape about not getting recruits. Remember Charlie Weis’ (another blow hard with no results) comment about “if you’re looking, we’re looking”. If you verbal to Texas and take a trip elsewhere, Mack Brown threatens to and sometimes withdraws the schollie offer. Urban Meyer plays the religion card with recruits. Lou Holtz told recruits that dissed Notre Dame that they not only made a four year mistake, they made a lifetime mistake. Les Miles cried about USC committing secondary violations when they signed Joe McKnight (OK, USC probably did, but, nonetheless…). Woody Hayes and Bo Schemblecher were famous for their tantrums when a top recruit chose another school.

    And, as we agree, who knows what’s going to happen on the way from 18 to 22. I harken back to 2003 when Whitney Lewis was the much more coveted recruit than Steve Smith. Who washed out both physically and academically and who just played in his first Pro Bowl?

  • Botros

    A few things…

    First its one thing to have sour grapes about losing recruits. It’s another thing to cry about it to the media.

    Secondly, people like to call recruiting a crapshoot, but if you look at Scout and Rivals recruiting rankings (and ignore everyone else’s, including and ESPECIALLY ESPN’s) you cannot deny the ridiculously high correlation between high rankings and impact players. For every dud you name, I can name 10 that panned out.