For four consecutive plays on Saturday night’s contest between Notre Dame and USC, fans watched as the Trojans failed to score from the 1-yard line in the game’s most crucial moments. This turnover on downs sealed USC’s loss to top-ranked rival Notre Dame and culminated the end of USC’s downward spiral of a regular season. After seasons that fail to meet lofty preseason expectations often comes a scapegoat, and disgruntled sports fans often look straight to head coach. In a day and age where head coaches are seen as disposable, the sentiment of “Fire Lane Kiffin” was common. But how much of a loss is a head coach personally responsible for?

There are many cases where coaches have directly altered the outcome of a game. On Thanksgiving Day, the NFL’s Detroit Lions lost a close contest to the Houston Texans. The turning point of the game came on a scoring play when head coach Jim Schwartz mistakenly threw his challenge flag. After the play, Schwartz could be seen apologizing to his fellow coaches and players for his mistake, and Schwartz took the blame for the loss after the game.

But for all the control over their team and on the outcome of a game that coaches appear to have, or do have, or are expected to have, at the same time they lack control over the biggest aspect of all: the game itself. Coaches can draw up plays and teach fundamentals or discipline. But the perfectly drawn up play is of little merit if players can’t make plays on the field.

Many basketball games come down to the final possession, and as a result coaches often have a play up their sleeve for the final shot. But fans rarely distinguish between a perfectly drawn up play on a coach’s part and a missed last shot on a player’s part. The two go hand in hand, as if the coach was responsible for the last shot. But what can a coach do to win short of putting the ball in the basket himself?

It’s true that coaches have authoritarian control outside of the week’s slate of games. They meticulously schedule team meals, meetings and plan a week’s worth of practices down to the minute. In a sport such as football, where each play is the result of a large number of miniscule factors — the height of a handoff, the timing of a throw or running of a route, or strength of a throw — no coach can control many or any of these for every play. You might be saying, of course, that coaches have never been a substitute for a player’s instincts. Rather, coaches merely work with players to win games. Then why are coaches often handed blame by definition?

The call for a new coach might be justified over the course of a season. Historically, new coaches redefine a team or program’s culture, for better or for worse. This paradigm shift often may be called for, but not on the basis of any individual game or play, like they often are today.

Coaches have a special role in history. They can be revered such as Nick Saban or Mike Krzyzewski, they can go down in history such as John Wooden or Vince Lombardi, or they can be dismissed unceremoniously like Rick Neuheisel. But at the end of the day, fans rarely get an insight into the esoteric mix of strategizing, teaching and learning that goes on behind the curtains. Instead, they should focus on what goes on in front of them — the field.

Jay is a freshman in Engineering. He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @jbensal.