Trojans Could Use Some Work on Their Timing

The firing of Charlie Parker was a lowdown, dirty shame. Basketball coaches get bounced from the gymnasium all the time, but seldom in the middle of a season, with a winning record, while well on their way to doubling the previous season’s number of victories.

Sometimes a coach has to go, but did this one need to go now?

Although USC went 7-21 last season, its record was 11-10 on Wednesday when, mystifyingly, Parker was summoned first thing in the morning and dismissed as coach. Deliberately vague on the reasons, Athletic Director Mike Garrett did say specifically that this was “not a decision made from wins and losses,” leaving it unclear why such drastic action was necessary, mere weeks before the NCAA tournament.

Why the rush? Not even the more famous Charlie Parker, who was a jazz player, and I don’t mean Utah, was ever so rudely interrupted in the middle of an act. One can only presume that schools such as Pepperdine, currently searching for a new coach, will add Parker’s name to their lists. Charlie deserves another chance.

I can certainly understand the Black Coaches Assn. looking into this on Parker’s behalf, although its mention of a possible “boycott against the Trojan athletic department, whereby all student-athletes would be encouraged to attend college elsewhere,” seems a terribly out-of-proportion response. USC’s action in relieving someone at midseason was deplorable, but hardly despicable.

Schools are entitled to change coaches.

What Parker is entitled to, as was Lou Campanelli at California and other coaches similarly let go this abruptly, is to know why he was treated this way, and to be, at the very least, fairly compensated. What the Black Coaches Assn., as well as the National Assn. of Basketball Coaches, should concern itself with is whether so swift an action on a university’s part might impede the coach’s chances of ever again landing a position. Such a brusque dismissal reflects on a coach’s competence.

Charlie Parker needn’t prove himself. He coached six seasons in Detroit at little Wayne State, with never a losing record. And although he had not been USC’s first choice as a permanent replacement for George Raveling, it was obvious that Parker was no longer under the impression that his status was interim. Nor were his players.

So, why the rush?

It could be that, as Garrett hinted, there is more--or less--here than meets the eye, that USC officials were unhappy with certain aspects of Parker’s program, but cannot--or would rather not--spell out exactly what they were, other than a general impression. No employer enjoys going public with specifics of disappointment with an employee.

Additionally, it could be because Paul Westphal, a USC alumnus who once coached the Phoenix Suns into the NBA finals, recently became available, fired in midseason exactly as Parker was. He is a coach in much demand. It would be a coup for the Trojans to get him.

Knowing full well that Westphal won’t be available long, perhaps Garrett had to act, negotiating with the coach as soon as possible and giving USC’s high school recruits something to think about. Blue-chippers are already making commitments. Any number would enjoy playing for Westphal, a guy Charles Barkley has called “my kind of coach.”

Nothing has been confirmed about USC and Westphal having a mutual interest, however. USC has appointed Henry Bibby as coach on what appears to be a temporary basis, although Parker himself seemed a temp when he took Raveling’s place on short notice.

It was only 12 days ago that Charlie seemed firmly in charge, when took his team to the University of Cincinnati to play one of the nation’s best. Delighted to be making a rare appearance on national television, Parker invited TV cameras into his locker room, where he was shown telling his players: “This is a chance for you to show everybody the way USC can play.”

Alas, that is not what they showed everybody. The Trojans were overpowered by Cincinnati in a game that was decided in a matter of minutes. It was only one game, but did little to indicate that Parker’s program was on the rise.

Hiring a coach has been a difficult matter of late for USC, a school that fancies itself as a big-time NCAA basketball program but has little to show for it. Attendance is sporadic, tournament success is negligible and the nation’s top preps rarely make USC their final choice, although the school continues to recruit well locally.

Westphal, if available, would be a great help.

Whatever USC does next, however, will do little to make up for what it did to Charlie Parker, who deserved better.