Welcome to the land of “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately?”

It’s a land full of coaches who know that if they don’t win now, they should pack their… It’s a land full of coaches who know that if they don’t win now, they should pack their bags. And one in which they can’t relish the spoils of past victories, because one bad loss means they’ve become history. The streets here are lined with unemployed coaches from all walks of life — drifters just waiting for their names to be called, so they can return to the lukewarm glow of head coaching. And taking his place at the end of that line, please welcome Mr. Byron Scott.

As conductor of the most-improved orchestra aside from the Cincinnati Bengals, Scott led the New Jersey Nets to back-to-back NBA Finals appearances. He was the head honcho of a team — actually, not a team … a cosmic joke is more like it — that became the crown jewel of the Eastern Conference. Granted, that jewel is like a 1-carat diamond to the West’s 12-carats, but all the same, the Nets were the new standard.

With the help of a certain trade that brought Jason Kidd to exit 16W, the Nets went from worst to first in a season. Stacked with a group of athletic youngsters and led by the best playmaking center since Ervin Johnson, Scott had a near-perfect team.

And for two years they reigned over the East, knocking out every opponent on their way to back-to-back Eastern Conference Championships. Never mind that they lost eight of the 10 finals games that they took part in, they were still as good as it gets for an Eastern team.

But after their embarrassing collapse in game six of the Finals, some questions were raised as to how good a coach Scott was. And the questions came in an even greater quantity once top assistant Eddie Jordan left to coach the Wizards.

Was Eddie Jordan responsible for the Nets’ success? Would Jason Kidd re-sign now that his main man skipped town? Did the players still believe in Scott?

After two straight Conference Championships, you’d think Scott was a shoo-in for a contract extension, but he didn’t receive one. The scrutiny surrounding Scott was so intense that, at one point, the media had Kidd re-signing only if Scott was ousted as coach. But a private meeting between Kidd, Scott and General Manager Rod Thorn seemed to quiet things down. Kidd signed a max contract, and Scott kept his job.

But somewhere between the Finals and the season opener, something changed drastically. Maybe Scott truly was lost without his top assistant, or maybe his team just lost their faith in him as a coach, but whatever it was that changed has left the Nets in bad shape. Floundering atop the joke they call the Atlantic Division, the Nets are just barely above 0.500 and six games behind where they were last year. Matching their 49-33 record of last year seems impossible at this point.

But despite their recent woes, including a five-game skid that was halted on Sunday, the Nets are still leading everyone else in their division. Yet Scott was fired Monday morning and replaced, at least temporarily, by assistant Lawrence Frank.

The main question that arises is whether he deserved to be kicked to the curb. He’s the winningest coach in team history, he’s taken the team to two straight Finals appearances and he has the team currently atop of their division. Looking at those facts, his dismissal seems completely unwarranted.

No one outside the team can really understand this. There’s speculation that the players, led by Kidd, demanded he be fired, but unless they come out and admit it, we’ll never know. There’s also talk that he was going to be fired all along, but management was waiting until the sale of the team was imminent.

But one thing is for sure, and that is that Scott’s firing is the complete embodiment of professional sports today. Whenever something is wrong with a team, fire the coach. It doesn’t matter what the team did last year or the year before, if they lose, can them. Everyone seems to believe in this philosophy now — fans, management, players — they all love to hate the coach.

Don’t believe me? Just ask former Raiders coach Bill Callahan. In his first year running the team, they romped and stomped their way to the Super Bowl before losing to Tampa Bay. This year they were plagued by the two worst things — age and injury — and stumbled their way to a last-place finish. But instead of getting another chance, Callahan was tossed out into the gutter.

And this happens in every sport, especially hockey. If you take the job as head coach of a hockey team, you might as well live out of your suitcase, because the minute you unpack, you’ll be fired. If you lose two games in a row: you’re fired. If you win two games in a row: you’re fired. It doesn’t really matter. Recent stats show that an NHL coach loses his job every 17 minutes.

Don’t think this trend is skipping completely over the college level either. Nebraska head coach Frank Solich was fired because his team finished the season with a “disappointing” 9-3 record. But they had good reason for firing him because to go 58-19 in six seasons is obviously an embarrassment to any coach. If only Walt Harris could mimic Solich’s record …

Which brings me to the anomaly that is Pittsburgh sports. Apparently, the Steel City has yet to receive the memo that all their coaches need to be fired. The Pirates? 75-87; goodbye, Lloyd McClendon. The Steelers? Six-ten; thanks, but no thanks, Bill Cowher. The Penguins? 11-31-5 (so far), see you later, Eddie Olczyk. Sooner or later, Pittsburgh will wake up and realize that it’s no longer cool to keep the same head coach every year, and the city’s current coaches will be able to join Scott at the end of the unemployed line.

Raymond Newby is a staff writer for The Pitt News. Email him at rsn4@pitt.edu.