We were very clear before the NCAA Tournament: A loss to Michigan State, if it happened, would in no way reduce or revise our assessment of Andy Enfield’s job performance this season.
Does Enfield have to do a few things better? Sure he does. Can and should USC grow as a program? Sure it should. Is USC maxing out on a larger overall level, meaning a five-year period or a larger trajectory? Of course not. No one is arguing any of those points. However, there has to be some reason in the building. There has to be an awareness of where USC is coming from as a basketball program on a larger, historical level.
USC had never previously qualified for four straight NCAA Tournaments. Andy Enfield has done that. USC would have played in the 2020 NCAA Tournament if the event had taken place. The pandemic wiped it out, but USC was safely in the field heading into Selection Sunday. USC had never, ever qualified for four straight tournaments. It played in the Big Dance from 2007 through 2009 and then in 2011, but that’s four times in five years, not four straight. Enfield took over a mediocre program and has made it better over the past 10 years. In 2024, he has a chance to do something big.
People who follow USC hoops know Enfield is doing a good job — not great, but certainly good. Yet, that didn’t stop people from firing off very hot takes after USC lost to Michigan State: