fix

In his postgame interviews analyzing the play of his basketball team, UCLA coach Mick Cronin is spot on. The problem is that as the coach, his prime duty is to fix these identified shortcomings, not to blame his players for the mounting problems.

If NIL funds are lacking, discuss this with the wealthy donors. If the offense is to generate more points, he needs to devise a new scheme. Quality coaches are able to change their approaches on the fly. If Cronin is unable to get the Bruins back on the winning track, his status in Westwood needs to be reassessed. But I guess Martin Jarmond performed an assessment when he secretly extended Cronin’s contract.

Neal Rakov
Santa Fe, N.M.

The great John Wooden passed almost 16 years ago but he still watches UCLA from heaven. After Tuesday’s bad loss to Wisconsin he turned to his first Bruins athletic director, Wilbur Johns, and asked “Did we really give Mick Cronin a five-year extension?”

Fred Wallin
Westlake Village

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — Two years ago, a day after he decided to fire Alex Grinch as USC‘s defensive coordinator, Lincoln Riley made a promise to those concerned about the future of the Trojans’ defense.

“I have complete belief, conviction. We will play great defense here,” the coach said in November 2023. “It is going to happen. There’s not a reason in the world why it can’t.”

Two years later, another defensive coordinator is out the door at USC. The day after Grinch’s replacement, D’Anton Lynn, left to take the same job at Penn State, Riley stood in front of reporters, assuring everyone once again that soon enough, USC would be great on that side of the ball.

“The arrow,” he said Tuesday, “is pointing straight up.”

“The opportunity for us to make a hire, to continue to make us better and to go from being a very good defense to being a great defense is the goal.”

Yet patience on that promise is wearing thin, especially given how the season had ended less than an hour before. USC blew a 10-point lead in the final five minutes against Texas Christian on Tuesday, a team playing without its star quarterback, before missing four tackles on a third-and-20 walk-off touchdown in overtime. The disastrous Alamo Bowl defeat would serve as an especially sobering reminder that while USC made progress under Lynn, it’s still a ways from heeding Riley’s guarantee.

And now, the defense will have to start again, with a new direction, a new scheme and a new coordinator, who will be Riley’s third hire in five seasons at USC.

In spite of all that, Riley was upbeat when asked about the unit’s future Tuesday night. He felt “fantastic,” he said, about where USC’s defense was headed.

“We have the personnel,” Riley said of becoming a great defensive unit. “We’re on an upward trend. And, you know, there’s going to be a lot of interest in this job.
I mean, this will be an extremely, extremely coveted job, and I can already tell by the nature of what my phone’s been like the last couple of days.”

Several potential candidates with deep experience, as well as close ties to USC athletics officials, are expected to be available.

Former Texas defensive coordinator Pete Kwiatkowski, who worked at Washington under current USC athletic director Jennifer Cohen, was let go by the Longhorns earlier this month. Cincinnati Bengals defensive coordinator Al Golden, meanwhile, worked closely with USC general manager Chad Bowden at Notre Dame and could be looking for a job as soon as next week.

Both coached college defenses that ranked in the top four in the nation in points allowed during the 2024 season.

USC appeared bound for a similar trajectory after Year 1 with Lynn. The Trojans allowed 10 fewer points per game, leaping from 121st in scoring defense under Grinch to 56th in his first season at USC. They got stingier on third down — 106th nationally to 21st — and in the red zone — 119th to 69th. Lynn was even named candidate for the Broyles Award, given to the nation’s top assistant.

In some respects, USC’s defense continued to take steps forward in Year 2 under Lynn. It gave up fewer points and fewer yards per game. The pass rush improved, adding 10 sacks to its season total in 2025.

But the personnel on defense was less proven this season — and more prone to mistakes. The secondary struggled through stretches. A thin group of linebackers was often overwhelmed. The defensive interior was manhandled for most of the season, and in each of their three regular-season losses, the Trojans were trampled on the ground.

Last month, when asked about the group’s inconsistency, Lynn said that USC’s youth forced him to “scale back” significantly on defense. He actually wondered, in the wake of USC’s loss to Oregon, if he shouldn’t have scaled back the defense even more this season.

“It’s different when you’re teaching an 18-year-old versus teaching a guy who has been at two to three schools who has already played a bunch of college ball,” Lynn said.

Lynn, nonetheless, leaves USC in a better place than when he arrived. The nation’s No. 1 recruiting class lands on campus next week, with plenty of highly ranked reinforcements on the way. Talented freshmen like defensive linemen Jahkeem Stewart and Floyd Boucard as well as defensive back Alex Graham are rising stars who should be ready to step into significant roles.

But USC will have to replace three starters in the secondary, including Kamari Ramsey, its best linebacker [Eric Gentry] and its top run stopper on the defensive line [Anthony Lucas]. Whomever takes over as coordinator will be expected to take a significant step forward immediately, up against one of the nation’s toughest schedules in what should be a decisive season for the program.

Then there’s the matter of Riley’s job security, which could make any available top coordinator queasy.

Yet as far as the coach is concerned, the path to finding a great coordinator and fielding a great defense isn’t that far off from what USC has now.

“I definitely don’t want to press reset,” Riley said. “I’m excited about the process, and I think it’s going to make us better, I know it will. So, we’ll wake up tomorrow morning and we’ll get on it.”

ITV viewers took to social media to complain after watching Jamie Redknapp on the Christmas special of Ant & Dec’s Limitless Win on December 27

Viewers of ITV were left divided on Saturday night (December 27) as they settled in to watch the Christmas edition of Ant & Dec’s Limitless Win.

The festive episode saw two unsuspecting members of the audience receive a delightful shock when they were called up to take on the Limitless ladder alongside celebrity partners.

Throughout the programme, mother-of-two Brooke teamed up with Amanda Holden, but her journey ended prematurely after getting stuck on merely five questions.

In contrast, former soldier Nigel was matched with footballing icon Jamie Redknapp, and their partnership proved far more successful. Their performance was so impressive that the pair managed to nail three questions in a row with perfect accuracy.

Among the challenges they tackled was: “How many holes does a standard golf course have?” to which they correctly responded 18.

They also encountered the question: “How many mm wide is a standard Lindt Lindor chocolate truffle?” For this particular challenge, the duo opted to use their advantage card, submitting one response whilst Ant and Dec provided another, with the system removing whichever answer was furthest from the truth, reports the Express.

Jamie and Nigel put forward 32 as their response, whilst the presenting pair underestimated with 28, which turned out to be spot on.

Their third perfectly accurate answer came when asked “How many stripes does Where’s Wally have on his T-shirt?” correctly identifying the number as 10.

However, after the tense scenes aired, viewers took to social media in droves to voice their frustrations over the perceived ease of the show’s questions, with many labelling it a “fix”.

One disgruntled viewer wrote: “P*** easy questions, such a fix” while another echoed the sentiment, saying: “Come on chaps, they have got through with the equivalent of asking what comes after C in the alphabet.”

A third chimed in: “The golf course question was a bit of a gimmie,” and a fourth jested: “Three exact answers in a row! Woahhhhh! [laughing emoji]”.

Meanwhile, another fan quipped: “Happy Christmas, the next question is… what is your house number? [cry-laughing emoji].”

After achieving an impressive hat trick, the amy vet decided to cash out with an impressive £30,000 in the bank, which left the guest almost in tears. He couldn’t help but thank Jamie for his help throughout the nail-biting game, as they walked out arm in arm.

The festive special arrives just weeks before the new series returns next month, as part of a double recommission announced earlier this year. Since launching in 2022, Limitless Win has given away over an astonishing £3.5million and has been streamed 13million times, reaching over 25 million viewers.

Ant & Dec’s Limitless Win is on ITV1 and ITVX

**For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website**

The recent strikes by the United States on alleged ISIL (ISIS) targets in northwest Nigeria have been presented in Washington as a decisive counter-terror response. For the supporters of the administration of US President Donald Trump, the unprecedented operation signalled his country’s renewed resolve in confronting terrorism. It is also making good on Trump’s pledge to take action on what he claims is a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria.

But beneath the spectacle of military action lies a sobering reality: Bombing campaigns of this nature are unlikely to improve Nigeria’s security or help stabilise the conflict-racked country. On the contrary, the strikes risk misrepresenting the conflict and distracting from the deeper structural crisis that is driving violence.

The first problem with the strikes is their lack of strategic logic. The initial strikes were launched in Sokoto in northwest Nigeria, a region that has experienced intense turmoil over the past decade. But this violence is not primarily driven by an ideological insurgency linked to ISIL, and no known ISIL-linked groups are operating in the region. Instead, security concerns in this region are rooted in banditry, the collapse of rural economies, and competition for land. Armed groups here are fragmented and motivated largely by profit.

The Christmas Day strikes appear to have focused on a relatively new ideological armed group called Lakurawa, though its profile and any connection to ISIL are yet to be fully established.

The ideological armed groups with the strongest presence in northern Nigeria are Boko Haram and the ISIL-affiliate in West Africa Province (ISWAP). The centre of these groups’ activity remains hundreds of kilometres from Sokoto, in the northeast of Nigeria – the states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa – where insurgency has a long history. This begs the question: Why strike the northwest first? The logic is unclear.

Equally concerning is the uncertainty surrounding casualties. So far, we have no authoritative figures. Some social media accounts claim there were no human casualties, suggesting the bombs fell on empty targets. Security analyst Brant Philip posted on his social media platform X: “According to a private source familiar with the US operation against the Islamic State in Nigeria, several strikes were launched, but most of the individuals and groups targeted were missed, and the actual damage inflicted remains mostly unknown.”

Nigerian news platform Arise TV reported on X that locals confirmed the incident caused widespread panic; according to its correspondent, at least one of the attacks happened in a district that had not suffered from violence before. They also noted that the full impact of the attack, including whether there were civilian casualties, is yet to be determined.

Other social media accounts have circulated images alleging civilian casualties, though these claims remain unverified. In a context where information warfare operates alongside armed conflict, speculation often travels faster than facts. The lack of transparent data on casualties from the US government risks deepening mistrust among communities already wary of foreign military involvement.

Symbolism also matters. The attack took place on Christmas Day, a detail that carries emotive and political significance. For many Muslims in northern Nigeria, the timing risks being interpreted as an act of supporting a broader narrative of a Western “crusade” against the Muslim community.

Even more sensitive is the location of the strikes: Sokoto. Historically, it is the spiritual seat of the 19th-century Sokoto Caliphate, a centre of Islamic authority and expansion revered by Nigerian Muslims. Bombing such a symbolic centre risks inflaming anti-US sentiment, deepening religious suspicion, and giving hardline propagandists fertile ground to exploit. Rather than weakening alleged ISIL influence, the strikes could inadvertently energise recruitment and amplify grievance narratives.

If air strikes cannot solve Nigeria’s security crisis, what can?

The answer lies not in foreign military intervention. Nigeria’s conflicts are symptoms of deeper governance failures: Weakened security, corruption, and the absence of the state in rural communities. In the northwest, where banditry thrives, residents often negotiate with armed groups not because they sympathise with them, but because the state is largely absent to provide them with security and basic services. In the northeast, where Boko Haram emerged, years of government neglect, heavy-handed security tactics, and economic exclusion created fertile ground for insurgency.

The most sustainable security response must therefore be multi-layered. It requires investment in community-based policing, dialogue, and pathways for deradicalisation. It demands a state presence that protects rather than punishes. It means prioritising intelligence gathering, strengthening local authorities, and restoring trust between citizens and government institutions.

The US strikes may generate headlines and satisfy a domestic audience, but on the ground in Nigeria, they risk doing little more than empowering hardline messaging and deepening resentment.

Nigerians do not need the US to bomb their country into security and stability. They need autochthonous reform: Localised long-term support to rebuild trust, restore livelihoods, and strengthen state institutions. Anything less is a distraction.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.