THE MIDDLE MAN

It’s his baby now: the pressure, the program. Lately, the whole three yards and a cloud of dust.

If USC football fails now, it falls in his office, on his watch, on his desk, on his laptop. And perhaps one day he’ll know what it feels like to be “hung out to dry,” as outgoing coach John Robinson so aptly described the process of being weaned from the USC athletic family.

Paul Hackett?

No, Mike Garrett.

Just as Garrett hovered over Robinson, scrutinized him like a laboratory rat, so now will Garrett be examined.

“I think Mike’s feet were to the fire the last few years anyway,” one USC alumnus said.

It may very well have pained Garrett to cut loose the likable Robinson, but Robinson was never his man.

Garrett did not hire Robinson; that was Mike McGee’s last act before moving on to South Carolina. When he became USC’s sixth athletic director in 1993, Garrett inherited Robinson and, thus, was never wholly responsible for him.

This always makes the termination process easier.

Garrett denies there is more pressure on him now because Hackett is his hire, probably the most important move he will make in his tenure.

“No, it doesn’t matter if it’s the one I pick or one someone else picks,” Garrett argued. “I just want good coaching.”

Of course it matters. Robinson admitted Wednesday what everyone knew: He and Garrett had differences that “stretched back four years.”

Obviously, Garrett and Hackett won’t start off on different philosophical planets.

Garrett has a career-making stake in Hackett, and let’s simply say USC alumni are monitoring the situation intently.

Many USC players expressed disgust with the way Garrett handled the Robinson firing. Some former players loyal to Robinson planned to express their feelings in writing to university President Steven B. Sample.

Trojan players and followers remain mystified at the process, notably the incredible overtures last week to former Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz while Robinson was still the sitting coach.

How could this be anything but demeaning to Robinson, a grandstand play?

“When the Lou Holtz stuff hit, everyone I knew said Sample should fire Garrett immediately if it’s true,” the USC alumnus said. “Hire Terry Donahue before you hire Lou Holtz. Holtz is the anti-Trojan.”

How much better is Holtz than Robinson? Holtz was 100-30-2 in 11 seasons at Notre Dame. Robinson was 104-35-4 in 12 seasons at USC. Holtz was 23-11-1 his last three seasons; Robinson was 21-13-1.

So what purpose did this foray serve?

“You play at USC, you learn to hate that guy,” receiver Billy Miller said of Holtz as he stood outside a ballroom after Robinson’s news conference. “Now, he’s going to be your coach?”

Garrett has never been much for tact. The manner in which he fired basketball coach Charlie Parker in 1996 proved that. Parker was unexpectedly dismissed during the season, while the Trojans had a winning record, and said he was never given specific reasons for it.

Yet, even USC alumni, bloodthirsty for wins, know there are limits to administration ruthlessness. It’s OK to fire Robinson, Garrett has that right, but one does not have the right to demean and denigrate someone who has meant so much to USC.

Garrett’s atrocious bedside manner backfired and made Robinson a victim.

“There was a lot more support for John Robinson than there should have been,” said the alumnus, who supported the hiring of Hackett.

The problem with Garrett and Sample is that they don’t think they mishandled anything.

“The people that say that, I think are totally incorrect,” Garrett said. “It reads well in the press that it was a process that took too long.”

Garrett says he did not have a problem with interviewing candidates before he fired Robinson.

“If I was going to be replaced, if the president is going to be replaced, or you were going to be replaced, you think they let you go first before they go look for someone?” Garrett asked.

Well, yeah.

Garrett said the many former and current USC players who are outraged are simply misinformed.

“People who misunderstood this, that don’t understand the dynamics, can be incorrect, yes,” Garrett said.

Sample, who refused to admit that Robinson was even fired, stood steadfastly behind his athletic director.

“I’m very, very satisfied with Mike Garrett,” Sample said. “We have a much stronger athletic program than when I came [March, 1991]. I give the lion’s share of credit to Mike.”

Of course, athletic directors need evaluating too.

As Garrett was Robinson’s boss, Sample is Garrett’s.

Sample said Garrett’s performance reviews are “probably every bit as intense” as Garrett’s were of Robinson.

If Hackett is the right man for the job, Garrett will have no worries. Robinson’s exit will be but a memory.

However, if Garrett is wrong about Hackett--who failed miserably in his only previous head-coaching position at the University of Pittsburgh--writers may choose this time to chase Sample down after lopsided losses to Arizona State, seeking updates regarding Garrett’s future.

And should Sample reply, “I’m with Mike for the whole year,” maybe Garrett will understand what Robinson felt.

If Sample, at season’s end, then makes a public run at the UCLA athletic director while Garrett is still employed, maybe Garrett will know what Robinson knew.

Should Sample then leave word on Garrett’s answering machine that his services will no longer be required, a vicious circle will have come full.