After Chicago's Olympic bid debacle, leaders of the various Olympic sports organizations were given a questionnaire in which they were asked whether acting CEO Stephanie Streeter "had the ability to be an effective leader of the Olympic movement". Not one of the 40 responses said yes.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that the embattled Streeter announced today that she would not be seeking the permanent position of USOC chief executiveand would effectively resign from her post after the Paralympics next March. This is purely a face-saving move for Streeter, as she had about as much chance of getting the USOC's top spot as I did. It's like somebody quitting their job right before the boss is about to fire them.

Streeter came under fire for her lack of international diplomacy (translation: she didn't suck up to the IOC), poor media skills (she didn't suck up to the press) and her half-million dollar salary. After Chicago's failure to land the Olympics, NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol bitterly said that the USOC needed "real leaders"and mocked Streeter's compensation package as out of touch with her experience. (Yeah, because NBC would never give a lot of money to somebody who was in over their heads.)

The criticism was right, but a lot of it feels like scapegoating. Was Streeter a bad acting CEO? Absolutely. She completely needed to go. But is it solely her fault Chicago didn't get the Olympics? Not by a long shot. There were a lot of people at the USOC and Chicago 2016 who could get blame too.

But finger pointing is what people do best in the wake of a debacle and Streeter is the obvious target. She needed to go, but her departure is only the first of many steps the USOC needs to take to reform itself.