The head coach skidded off the rails publicly in August, apologized during a cringe-worthy news conference two days later, was forced to take a leave of absence Sunday and then, barely 24 hours after that, was abruptly terminated.

For a proud program so well established that its traditions and its past are housed in a place called Heritage Hall, USC football has become alarmingly unstable.

Monday would have been a great time to bring some steadiness to the situation, preferably from the top. But the school’s athletic administration remained mostly silent, again failing to meet expectations.

Pat Haden botched the firing of Steve Sarkisian almost as much as – we all know today – he botched Sarkisian’s hiring.

So, with another major head coaching decision coming in a future now approaching sooner than later, how can anyone trust Haden to make the right choice this time?

How can they and why would they, precisely?

Especially when the athletic director doesn’t work with a contract, leaving his own future perpetually unclear?

Especially when Haden admits he doesn’t even know how much longer he wants to be USC’s AD and will publicly commit only through this year?

Especially when he somehow didn’t see the red flags in Sarkisian’s past or, even worse, failed to grasp the severity of them, a past so polluted with warning signs that Sarkisian’s players at Washington still joke about them?

Haden, according to USA Today, is the highest-paid athletic director in college sports, his total compensation reaching $2.5 million in 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available. Based on recent developments, the school isn’t getting its money’s worth.

Who knows? Maybe some clarity will come Tuesday, USC saying there’s a possibility Haden will take questions from reporters.

On Monday, however, much like in the immediate aftermath of Sarkisian’s under-the-influence “Salute to Troy” episode, Haden remained tucked behind a statement released by the school.

There’s really no reason to doubt Haden’s past comments about his love for USC, the obligation he feels to the university where he once starred as a quarterback and his commitment to all Trojan student-athletes.

But, with the way his Sarkisian decisions unfolded – starting with the moment he chose to hire the coach in December of 2013 – everyone should have reservations about Haden’s personnel acumen and that includes USC’s president, Max Nikias.

I, for one, thought Haden absolutely made the right move in firing Sarkisian’s predecessor, Lane Kiffin, and initially found the way it happened mostly humorous.

Now, however, I’m thinking Haden’s bizarrely urgent choice to can Kiffin at the airport, in the middle of the night, just as the Trojans returned after a dreadful loss at Arizona State, was more telling of his absence of judgment than his absence of timing.

Don’t forget that Haden’s other major coaching hire at USC, men’s basketball coach Andy Enfield, was based largely on Florida Gulf Coast winning two games in the 2013 NCAA tournament. At USC, Enfield’s teams are 5-31 in Pac-12 play.

After Sarkisian’s problems with addiction surfaced locally in August, Haden told the Los Angeles Times the coach’s “Salute to Troy” performance wasn’t “the Steve Sarkisian I’ve known for a long time or certainly the guy I hired.”

In reality, however, that Steve Sarkisian was exactly the guy Haden hired, the stories about Sarkisian’s strange and concerning behavior at Washington surfacing these days in staggering abundance.

For someone Haden claims to have known for a long time, Sarkisian must have completely fooled him, such abilities not uncommon among addicts.

But shouldn’t the process of vetting a potential hire – especially for a position as high-profile as USC football coach – expose such an act, no matter how good it is, given how many people in Seattle could see through it?

If the more recent stories are true (and, by all indications, they are), Sarkisian was coaching under the influence of something last month when the Trojans beat Arizona State. Just think about that for a moment, a head coach at a school this prestigious buzzed on the sidelines?

Yet, it wasn’t until another red-eyed episode Sunday – Sarkisian reportedly not sober enough to attend practice – that Haden finally took the sort of action so many people had called for back in August.

An athletic administrator at another school told me he believed Haden was initially reluctant to discipline Sarkisian because of how it could impact the football team’s success and, in turn, USC’s financial bottom line.

Guess that’s part of the whole “Fight On!” spirit.

During that latest interview with the Times, Haden also said, “I want the reputation of our athletic department to meet the reputation of the rest of the university.” On that front, I think it’s safe to say Haden has failed, too.

Does he deserve another chance? I certainly wouldn’t want to plead Haden’s case, not with this latest avalanche of evidence against him.

Instead, there should be serious questions about USC’s athletic administration and the AD’s ability to find the right person to lift the football program out of its current unsettled state, out of this Heritage Hell.

Contact the writer: jmiller@ocregister.com