Multiple Pac-12 schools (soon to be in other conferences) fired their head basketball coaches this week. Years of drift and a lack of high-end results led Stanford and Washington to make choices which realistically could have and should have been made at least one year earlier if not more. USC could choose to fire Andy Enfield, but in fairness to Enfield, the Trojan coach has made a series of NCAA Tournaments before running into a disaster this year. Enfield has achieved a lot more than what other failed coaches have managed to do at other schools. That having been said, USC fell far short of expected standards this season. Injuries played a key role, and we’re not going to ignore or dismiss that. However, USC lost a number of games it still should have won, even if you factor the injuries into the equation. Let’s discuss the pros and cons of firing Andy Enfield, but we remind you that the school is likely to retain him for two obvious reasons.
Let’s talk:
Let’s start with Pac-12 coaching news. Washington fired Mike Hopkins, who made the NCAA Tournament one time in seven seasons in Seattle. Enfield has been far, far better at USC.
Stanford fired Jerod Haase right after the Cardinal were eliminated from the Pac-12 Tournament and watched their season end on Thursday night. Haase did not make the NCAA Tournament one time in eight seasons. That makes Enfield look like John Wooden by comparison.
The first and best reason to keep Enfield at USC is that he made the NCAA Tournament four straight years (if you count 2020, when USC was going to get into the field). That’s very impressive, and something no previous USC men’s basketball coach had ever done. One can say that 2024 was a huge swing and a miss, but that it was also an outlier and a deviation from the norm. It’s a perfectly legitimate reason to keep Enfield for 2025 and the Big Ten. We do try to be fair here.
The other main reason to keep Enfield at USC for another season is more practical: dollars. USC shelled out a lot of money to hire elite defensive football coaches for Lincoln Riley. USC has money, but not an endless supply. Resources have to be managed and allocated well. The idea that USC can’t spend everything all at once is reasonable. Giving Enfield one chance to bounce back for 2025, and then reassess after next season, is not a ridiculous idea at all. Of course there’s merit to the idea.
Andy Enfield has raised the ceiling for USC basketball. When he arrived, the program was stuck and lost. Enfield has elevated the bar in terms of expectations. USC is now expected to make the NCAA Tournament every year. Enfield has therefore made USC better compared to when he arrived in 2013. However, should USC think that’s as great as it’s ever going to get? Should USC not try to become a Sweet 16 program which gets higher seeds in NCAA Tournaments? Enfield’s highest seed at USC is a No. 6 seed in 2021, when he went to the Elite Eight. Henry Bibby guided this team to a No. 4 seed in 2002. Tim Floyd guided the Trojans to a No. 5 seed in 2007 when they went to the Sweet 16. Enfield had that one great run to the Elite Eight, but as a mid-level seed. USC still hasn’t gained a seed higher than No. 4 at the NCAA Tournament since 1992, when they were a No. 2 seed under George Raveling. Shouldn’t USC aspire to be more, and to achieve more? If it should, the program should search for an elite head coach.
Enfield is a good coach, but not elite. USC should strive for an elite leader. It can find one. In fact, the proof already exists that elite coaches can be convinced to come here.
USC went out and got an elite, top-of-the-line basketball coach for its women’s program. You’re seeing what Lindsay Gottlieb can do. USC landed her and convinced her to come to Los Angeles. There’s really no good reason the school can’t convince a top men’s coach to do the same. Why not do this? Why not insist on the best? Lindsay Gottlieb is the best argument for making a change in the men’s basketball program.
This isn’t sarcastic at all. It is meant with sincerity: Thank you, Andy Enfield. Your successes at USC are real and substantial. You have improved the program in 11 years. This is a real and meaningful achievement, and USC fans should be grateful for the work you have done.
Those successes, however, mean that the bar is higher — it should be higher — in terms of annual expectations. In order to meet those expectations created by Enfield’s legitimately good job performance, another person is needed to take the program to the next level.
But genuinely: Andy Enfield has done well at USC and made the program better. No one should lose sight of that. With improvement, though, comes added responsibility to continue building toward greater heights and larger successes.
While USC basketball endured a miserable season under Enfield, UCLA endured just as bad a season under Mick Cronin. The obvious difference is that Cronin made the Final Four and then produced a pair of Sweet 16 seasons with top-four NCAA Tournament seeds in 2022 and 2023. He set the bar a lot higher than Enfield did.
What’s notable about Cronin is that with so many high-profile jobs coming open, notably Louisville, Cronin — who has openly expressed his displeasure with what he views as UCLA’s very weak NIL investments — could have a wandering eye for another job. It’s an important plot point to monitor in the college basketball coaching carousel.
We think Enfield has done a good job at USC and has raised expectations for the program and what it should be. Those raised expectations mean USC can and should find a better (Lindsay Gottlieb-quality) coach to take the program to the next level.
We don’t, however, think USC will fire Enfield — partly because of money allocations, partly because of what Enfield did well from 2020 through 2023. Now we get to see what happens elsewhere in the coaching carousel, including in the Pac-12 (soon to be Big Ten and ACC) at Washington and Stanford.