Coaching kills USC in loss to Utah

The USC football team was finally exposed Saturday night. A team that has been defined thus far by playing “not-to-lose” against quality opponents, lost. With only four games left in the season, it might be a wise time for the coaching staff to reexamine their offensive philosophy.

The fourth quarter followed what has become a predictable pattern. USC gets the ball. They have a couple of good offensive plays and drive into opponents’ territory. Then, for some inexplicable reason, they bleed the clock instead of running any semblance of their normal offense.

I assume the rationale behind this is to leave as little time as possible on the clock for the opponents. That would summarize the not-to-lose mentality that has marked this team. The problem with this is it gives the opponent the ability to dictate the outcome of the game.

Sometimes probability and luck will prevail like it did against Arizona and Stanford. Most good schools, however, will seize the opportunity, take the ball, march down the field and score. I know this is what good teams do because I grew up watching a USC dynasty that specialized in this in the rare close games they played.

The Utah game confirmed the 2014 Trojans’ identity: an incredibly talented team handicapped for the most part by risk-averse coaching.

This all could have been avoided after redshirt junior quarterback Cody Kessler’s brilliant third down throw to junior wide receiver Nelson Agholor on the final drive. Had the team gone for the jugular instead of bleeding the clock after that big play, the game would have been out of reach. Instead, the Trojans let Utah back in.

Clearly I’m not a college football coach. Maybe if I was, I could understand the logic behind insisting on sticking to a philosophy that has produced few results this season. It’s even more confusing to me that there is ample evidence showing this Trojan team can succeed throwing it 10 to 20 yards downfield in between the hashes, including the first touchdown drive on Saturday.

What reasoning is there to abandon something that is successful and go with something that clearly doesn’t work? Whatever it is, it’s the reason USC lost.

Right before the USC game started, I was watching Alabama play Tennessee. Tennessee had just scored to bring the game within 10 points late in the third quarter. They had momentum on their side, and Alabama appeared as if it might wilt.

Instead, the Crimson Tide took the football and marched it down the field en route to a clinching touchdown. They shut the door on the Volunteers. That’s the mark of a great team, and shutting the door  is what USC has failed to do this year. Saturday, the coaches squandered every opportunity to turn the game into a blowout.

One might try to attribute this loss to having only 48 scholarship players available. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the Trojans defense was worn out in the fourth quarter. Knowing this, a great coach would plan a way to put the game far out of reach before the final drive. At that point, depth issues become irrelevant.

Even with little depth, lack of a killer instinct will prevent the Trojans from developing into a dominant dynasty again. Playing not to lose against good teams is the surest way to, in fact, lose. The passive approach to football just doesn’t work.

In football, you are what your record is. USC is not five big plays from being undefeated — they’re just an average seven-or eight-win football team.

Jake Davidson is a sophomore majoring in accounting. His column, “Davidson’s Direction,” runs Mondays.