My Take on Pete Carroll’s Recent Flirtation with the Dolphins

Over the last six years, Pete Carroll has been consistent about at least three things: he is happy at USC; he is constantly in search of new challenges; and he would only return to the coaching in the NFL if given the level of control he enjoys at USC, which is total control. Until approached by Wayne Huizenga of the Miami Dolphins, Carroll did not believe that such a situation existed at an NFL franchise, and so did not seriously entertain the notion of returning to the NFL.

Huizenga described a setup at the Dolphins that was exactly what Carroll thought could not exist in the NFL. According to Carroll’s nature of seeking new challenges, he seriously considered the Dolphins job. After all, he has conquered just about every challenge at USC with five straight Pac-10 championships, five straight BCS bowl appearances (with four wins), and five straight top five recruiting classes. In fact, I believe he was closer to declaring himself a candidate for the job than maybe anyone realizes. However, when Carroll sat down to earnestly work through his decision-making process, he came to the conclusion that there were still challenges to address at USC, and he loves his job at USC too much to leave. I don’t think he made his final decision until just after his Tuesday press conference upon returning from vacation in Costa Rica.

I think this is an extremely positive development for USC fans who want Carroll to stay. If, after being presented with this opportunity by Huizenga and comparing his USC job to this potential NFL gig, Carroll decided to remain a Trojan, what other job could possibly draw Carroll away from USC? He has glimpsed his ideal NFL job and come to the conclusion that he is better off where he is. He is possibly more certain than ever before about his future at USC. This is great news for USC fans.

Jill Painter at the L.A. Daily News has a similar take on the situation as me. From her column:

"If you're asking me if I'm ever going (to the NFL again), if I was ever going to go, that (the Dolphins' job) would've been the best one," Carroll said.

Sam Farmer at the L.A. Times argues that staying at USC would be a much better decision for Carroll than the one John McKay made to go to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Update: Pete Carroll said as much to the Daily News on Thursday:

"I was at the brink of it," Carroll told the Daily News of Los Angeles. "I made the decision to return right before I talked to (the media Tuesday).

Exactly Right

Stewart Mandel expresses simply and concisely the best argument against an Ohio State-Michigan rematch:

My point all along . . . is that we don’t really know Ohio State and Michigan are the two best teams. It’s just an opinion. The only way to find out for sure would be to let someone else take a shot at the Buckeyes.

That's right; we already know that Ohio State is better than Michigan. They proved it on the field. It doesn't make sense to make them prove it again. Give the champion of another conference the opportunity in the BCS Championship to prove on the field that Ohio State isn't the best team in the country. At this point, in most deserving order, those teams are as follows:

1. USC (Pac-10 champ), if they beat Notre Dame and UCLA;
2. Arkansas/Florida winner (SEC champ), if that team wins its last regular season game;
3. Louisville (Big East champ), if they win their two remaining games; and
4. West Virginia (Big East champ), if they win their two remaining games (with Rutger's loss, Louisville now holds the tie-breaker for conference champion if both Louisville and West Virginia win out).

Only if none of those teams take care of business should Michigan be sent to the BCS Championship. Sorry, Notre Dame, but if Michigan and ND end up being the two top-ranked one-loss teams, Michigan gets the nod. You can't erase Michigan 47, Notre Dame 21.

What planet ya from, Charlie?

Ooooooo, I liked this. Best quote:

"Hey, care to know what befuddles me, Charlie? How the head coach of Notre Dame, a program which has consistently been overrated and ranked higher than it deserved to be for more than a decade -- and for most of the past century -- has the audacity to complain about polls. I mean … wow! That more than befuddles me."

Be careful, Charlie - remember what happened to the last coach who complained about the BCS standings, Tommy Tuberville (Arkansas 27 - Auburn 10).

HT: Student Body Right.

Update: Stewart Mandel of SI.com chimes in with some hard numbers.

I Miss Norm

Do any other Trojan football fans miss Norm Chow?

I wrote multiple times during the 2005 season that, even though the USC offense continued to put up monster numbers after the departure of Chow as offensive coordinator, it was too early to reach a verdict on whether the Trojan offense would ultimately suffer without Chow.

First, I wrote that with the players returning in 2005 (Bush, Byrd, Jarrett, Leinart, Smith, White, and four past starters on the offensive line), the offense would be extremely prolific no matter who was running the show. My concern was the loss of Chow’s play-calling genius.

Then, I questioned Michael Ventre’s assertion on MSNBC that USC lost nothing offensively when they lost Chow. Finally, I reiterated my feeling that USC was worse off for losing Chow’s play-calling ability and we would have to wait until at least 2006 before passing judgment on the performance of his replacements, Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian. To repeat a quote from a December 2005 Pat Forde article on ESPN.com (insider):

"Norm had an uncanny ability to call plays," Sarkisian said. "We may not have always known what was coming, but it worked. Especially in big games, he was willing to make calls nobody else would make.

"I think we're a little bit more on the structured side. We know what calls are coming. We know by the play sheet what to call, depending on the situation. The quarterback knows what's being called by the specific situation."

That sounds great from the perspective of an opposing defensive coordinator.

Personally, I think with Norm Chow calling the plays, Lendale White does not get stopped on 4th & 2 to turn the ball over to Texas with just over two minutes remaining in the Rose Bowl, and we are defending national champs; the Trojans do not go four games in a row without scoring 30 points or more in 2006; and USC does not settle for four field goals against Washington.

Yes, I miss Norm.

Signing Day

According to multiple authorities, USC signed the #1 recruiting class in the country yesterday. Florida and USC were neck-and-neck in the final tally.

The day was not without controversy for USC, as one of the country’s top two wide receiver prospects, Vidal Hazelton, faxed his letter of intent (LOI) to USC without his father’s approval. The LOI is invalid without a legal guardian’s signature. He is said to be considering Penn State. On the other hand, Hazelton’s classmate at Hargrave Military Academy in Chatham, VA, running back Keiland Williams, has not signed an LOI with LSU and is thought to be strongly considering USC. Regardless of the final outcome of the 2006 recruiting competition, it will be at least a couple years before the relative strength of each school’s class can be determined definitively.

The Trojans ended up securing a commitment from a quarterback, Garrett Green, on the last day, so offensive line is the only position in the class with an apparent deficiency.

This marks the fourth consecutive year that USC’s recruiting class has been listed by many national recruiting publications as the best in the country. Not coincidentally, that is just one year less than the number of years that Pete Carroll has had a full recruiting cycle to build a class. If Stewart Mandel’s statement is true:

“Second-year coaches at rebuilding programs almost always clean up in recruiting. Momentum is rarely higher than when a coach first arrives. The key is keeping it going.

“At schools where the coaches are more deeply entrenched, however, recruiting results are often a telling reflection of the overall state of a program,”

then yesterday’s results are very good news indeed for the USC football program.

Update: Vidal Hazelton signed a LOI with USC on February 23, becoming the 25th member of USC's 2006 recruiting class.

Sarkiffian Better Than Chow?

This article by ESPN.com's Pat Forde outlines the success Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian have had this year replacing Norm Chow as offensive coordinators. I touched on this earlier this month and I'm still not convinced the USC offense is better off, or even no worse off, without Chow. Forde discusses the major differences between the Chow offense and the "Sarkiffian" offense. Emphasizing the running game and shifting the passing game slightly more vertical have been positive developments. However, it's the other difference that concerns me:

"Norm had an uncanny ability to call plays," Sarkisian said. "We may not have always known what was coming, but it worked. Especially in big games, he was willing to make calls nobody else would make.

"I think we're a little bit more on the structured side. We know what calls are coming. We know by the play sheet what to call, depending on the situation. The quarterback knows what's being called by the specific situation."

Doesn't that mean once an opposing defensive coordinator figures out your system, he may have a pretty good idea what's coming next? It's not the day-to-day coaching in practice that I'm not convinced has been replaced; it's the play-calling. Don't get me wrong, I have no complaints about the Kiffin-Sarkisian combo this year. I just think it's too early to pass judgment on Norm Chow's replace-ability.

The Weakest Link?

I don't necessarily disagree with Matthew Zemek's analysis of the receiving corps as potentially the Trojans' weakest link in the Rose Bowl, as opposed to the defense or the special teams, but I don't see the receivers as an area of particular concern going into the big game. In fact, I can't think of any aspect of the team that really worries me at this point, which I'd say is quite a luxurious position in which to be. Perhaps that attitude will change over the next two weeks if my anxiety level rises as game-time approaches.

The Round Robin Rocks

I want to go on record as being very excited about the Pac-10's new conference scheduling format starting next year. The Pac-10 almost immediately approved a full round robin format after the 12-game football season was made permanent by the NCAA. For some reason, I don't think the average non-Pac-10 fan is aware of the change, as demonstrated in this letter: "I say the Big XII, SEC, and now the ACC are determining conference champions the right way. On the field. The PAC 10, and Big 10 +1 need to take notice." To credit Pete Fiutak, in his response to the letter he states he supports the Pac-10 plan. It’s not the Pac-10 that needs to take notice, but rather the 12-team mega-conferences and especially the Big 10.

In the Pac-10, there will never again be conference co-champions that did not play each other, such as Big-10 champs Iowa and Ohio State in 2002, necessitating the existence of convoluted rules to determine the conference's Rose Bowl/BCS representative. Also, the Pac-10 will have no need for a conference championship game. Every team will play nine conference games and there is no risk of crowning a team with a lesser conference record the conference champion based on one very good or bad game, á la Big 12 champs Kansas State in 2003 or ACC champs Florida State this year.

The system is good for USC because it allows the Trojans to continue their annual contest with Notre Dame, play another big-name school in non-conference play (Nebraska in 2006 and 2007, Ohio State in 2008 and 2009), and play one other relatively easier non-conference game, in addition to their nine game conference schedule.

Three Reasons . . .

This seams to be a popular format for analyzing the USC-Texas Rose Bowl match-up:

• Stewart Mandel's three reasons (each) why the 2006 Rose Bowl will and will not be different than the 2005 Orange Bowl blowout.
• Heismanpundit addresses the same question.
• Burnt Orange Nation gives three reasons why USC will win and three reasons why Texas will win.

The Eight-Step Program for Beating the Trojans

According to Seth Fast Glass of the UCLA rag Daily Bruin, UCLA must complete the following eight steps to beat the Trojans tomorrow:

STEP 1: Win the coin toss; score the first touchdown;

STEP 2: Throw the ball;

STEP 3: Take the lead into halftime;

STEP 4: Get Matt Leinart's jersey dirty;

STEP 5: Make a play on special teams;

STEP 6: Win the turnover margin;

STEP 7: Don't let USC make a big defensive play late; and

STEP 8: Get lucky

Is that all? Piece o' cake, right?

Given that the odds of UCLA completing Step 1 are exactly 1 to 1 and rapidly decline from there, it looks like the Bruins are going to be disappointed. Halftime leads didn't help Oregon, Arizona State, Notre Dame, or Fresno State, nor did big plays on special teams by Arizona State, Notre Dame, Fresno State, or UCLA last year. Matt Leinart has the country's best offensive line keeping his jersey clean. USC has the best turnover margin in the country. Making big defensive plays late has practically become a USC trademark (excepting the Notre Dame game). Step 8 speaks for itself.

Some Perspective

With the level of excellence at which USC football is now operating, it's hard to remember how things were only five years ago. This article, by Mark Whicker of the Orange County Register, is a good reminder of how far the program has come and how much expectations have risen since Pete Carroll was hired in 2001.

Replacing Chow no problem for USC

Does anyone else think it's still too early to be making this statement, as Michael Ventre does in this MSNBC article? I say wait until next year, after Matt Leinart is gone and there's some serious offensive personnel turnover, before passing verdict on how replaceable Norm Chow is.

A Nod to Pete Carroll

Not much has been said about the job Pete Carroll has done coaching the Trojans this year. Matthew Zemek includes Carroll on his list of underappreciated coaches:

* Pete Carroll, USC. A weird choice as an “underappreciated” coach, but an appropriate one nevertheless. It’s easy to think winning coaches are just presiding over juggernauts, much the same way Bobby Cox has had it easy in managing the Atlanta Braves to 14 consecutive division championships. But when you consider how much of a bullseye USC wears each game, and how banged-up the Trojans’ defense has been this year, Carroll’s ability to mask weaknesses and get very green players to play big minutes and produce--or at least hang in there well enough to avoid losing games--is nothing short of phenomenal. While Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush will cover up a lot of defensive deficiencies, it still stands that without an ability to get clutch turnovers, USC and its defense would have lost a few games in 2005 that it managed to ultimately win. Carroll has had more than a bit part in shaping that reality. He has scrambled and strategize with all his might to keep SC in line for a third straight title.

A Heisman-Winning Performance?

If USC beats UCLA in two weeks and Reggie Bush wins the Heisman, will his outstanding, record-setting performance in the Fresno State game go down as the moment when he locked up the trophy? Ivan Maisel thinks so.

Update: Bush makes Stewart Mandel rethink his Heisman vote -

It was like watching one of those hilarious high-school tapes where some future college star runs roughshod over a bunch of private-school rich kids.

Further update: Pete Fiutak makes a persuasive argument for Matt Leinart to repeat as Heisman winner -

Simply put, if USC beats UCLA and plays for the national title, based on his accomplishments, Leniart will be the greatest college football quarterback of all-time. The guy is overqualified for the honor of being the second two-time Heisman winner.

[. . .]

If USC goes on to win the national title, it’s not an overstatement by any stretch to call Leinart’s pass to Dwayne Jarrett for a 61-yard gain on fourth and nine in the final moments against Notre Dame the greatest throw of all-time.

Another Update: The best ever? Brian Meehan of The Oregonian also thinks so.

USC-Fresno State

USC didn't even have to play this game!

With the Pac-10 schedule moving from eight to nine games starting in 2006, the annual match with Notre Dame, and the likes of Nebraska (2006, 2007) and Ohio State (2008, 2009) on the schedule in the coming years, I think it will be a while before we see Fresno State on the Trojans' schedule again.

Update: I haven't been impressed with Matthew Zemak's analyses this year, but I liked his Instant Analysis of last night's USC-Fresno State game. His thoughts about the nature of this comeback victory as compared to other USC comebacks in 2005, the role of place-kicker Mario Danelo, Reggie Bush's clutch impact, and the potential impact of the game on pollsters' and college football experts' opinions of the Pac-10 in general and Oregon in particular were interesting.

Poll Fiction

Freedom Dip takes exception to USC’s claim to a 2003 national championship in football (hat tip: Burnt Orange Nation):

Let's get something straight with USC and the rest of the college football world.

USC is NOT going for a 3-peat!!! Period.

Who won the national title in 2003? Wasn't it LSU?

If fans say, "Well, USC should have been in the title game." Then I say tough. The BCS is the system agreed upon by the coaches, and the coaches voted the Tigers No. 1 after the Sugar Bowl that year. Ap's vote doesn't even count anymore. BCS is the accepted system for now.

If USC claims half the title in 2003, then Auburn should claim half of the 2004 title.
End of story.

Well, allow me to retort.

Does Tommy Trojan look like a bitch?

I said, DOES TOMMY TROJAN LOOK LIKE A BITCH?

No? Then why are you trying to f*** him like a bitch, Freedom Dip?

Seriously, this is a tired argument and the only people trying to make it are LSU fans and other Trojan-haters. USC’s claim is that it is defending two consecutive AP national titles. Yes, there is a distinction. No, USC does not deny that LSU was a co-national champion in 2003 (I seem to remember some kind of ceremony on the south lawn of the White House with both teams present). Why are some LSU fans so determined to reject USC’s equally legitimate claim?

The NCAA does not recognize an official national champion in Division I-A football. Even the BCS itself concedes that there was a split national title in 2003: “For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion.”

SI.com’s Stewart Mandel lays it out in his May 17, 2005 College Football Mailbag:

I'm getting sick and tired of all of you people saying that USC is going for a three-peat. Just being No. 1 in the AP poll does not mean you won the national title. Some people may think this is just an (even after five months) angry Sooners fan ranting, but it's crazy to say the Trojans are going for a three-peat.
--Seth Points, Haskell, Okla.

Tell you what, Seth: We'll stop referring to USC as two-time defending national champion just as soon as Oklahoma renounces its 1950, '55, '56, '74, '75 and '85 national championships. This may come as a shock to you (and to everyone else who has written in with the same complaint), but the Sooners won those titles the same way USC won its 2003 crown: By finishing No. 1 in the AP poll.

You may also be unaware that the crystal trophy handed out at the end of each year's BCS title game is not technically bestowed for winning the game but rather for finishing No. 1 in the coaches' poll (which, conveniently, is required to vote the winner of the game No. 1). So, unless for some reason you think the coaches' poll is somehow more legitimate than the AP poll -- and, as far as I know, they've been considered pretty much equals for about 70 years -- then there's really nothing "crazy" about it.

Let’s not forget that the AP poll was legitimate enough in the eyes of the BCS people that they completely revamped their ranking system after the 2003 season to preclude the recurrence of a unanimous #1-ranked team being excluded from their title game.

Fiutak's Voodoo T-shirts

Pete Fiutak recounts the following amusing story in this week's "Cavalcade of Whimsy" on College Football News:

The bidding starts at one USC Song Girl . . . This is no lie. I was wearing my UCLA Football t-shirt while running on the treadmill during the USC-Notre Dame game a few weeks ago. I took a very quick shower during the commercial break after the Brady Quinn fourth quarter touchdown run, and then unwittingly threw on my USC Football t-shirt when I got out. You know the rest. I noticed the same thing happened in reverse during the UCLA-Stanford game. I was wearing the USC t-shirt when working out, took a quick shower early in the fourth quarter, put on the UCLA t-shirt, and the Bruins won with an epic comeback. Guess what shirt was in the rotation when UCLA got destroyed by Arizona? I will wear one of the two on December 3rd. You may begin to woo me.

First of all, that anyone, even someone completely unaffiliated with either university, could so casually switch back and forth between USC and UCLA attire strikes me as very . . . wrong; like the situation on the ESPN commercial where the Ohio State guy and the Michigan girl (or is it the other way around?) are sitting together on the couch acting schmoopy.

Secondly, wear the UCLA T-shirt on Dec. 3, Pete - I wouldn't want there to be any doubt on Dec. 4 that the pasting given to the Bruins by the Trojans resulted from anything other than USC's vastly superior talent, coaching, and fortitude.

On the other hand, who can blame him for the attempted ploy to score some time with a Song Girl?

Move Those Chains

I really like Erik McKinney's "Move Those Chains" columns on WeAreSC. Here are a couple gems from the Cal review:

Giving Pete Carroll four weeks to prepare for any team is like giving me the answer key to a quiz about the best popsicle flavors. Whereas giving Mack Brown four weeks to prepare for a team is like letting me have an extra day to memorize pi out to ten thousand digits. It’s not going to make a difference.

[. . .]

Hey DeSean, at least this way you get to play four quarters every game.

Bad Analysis

I came across an example of exceptionally bad analysis in Matthew Zemek's "Weekly Affirmation" at College Football News.com:

When Cal lost to Oregon in a sloppy football game, USC’s strength of schedule dipped appreciably. A team that had been 5-0 and leading UCLA by 12 points with nine minutes left in regulation had suddenly spiraled to 6-3 before the showdown with the Trojans next weekend. When the Canes and Hokies kicked it off in Blacksburg, I was thinking to myself, “If USC doesn’t blast Cal out of the water—really crush them—on Nov. 12, one has no choice to dock the Trojans for their strength of schedule, just as I docked Texas for its strength of schedule.” I didn’t expect Cal to take this kind of a nosedive, but it happened, and that’s part of the larger body of evidence I have to deal with. My mind has to remain open when new evidence presents itself.

He continues:

Later in the day, the landscape changed even more against USC. When UCLA—a team supposedly worthy of contending for the Pac-10 title as USC’s final regular-season opponent—lost so decisively and pathetically to Arizona, I had no choice but to internally downgrade USC’s schedule strength still more.

Huh?

Objectively speaking, these two games have absolutely no net effect on USC's strength of schedule because USC plays all four teams. The loss by Cal, USC's Nov. 12 opponent, was a win for Oregon, USC's Sept. 24 opponent; just as UCLA's loss was a win for Arizona, who USC beat on Oct. 8. Therefore, the results of these two games for these four teams cancel each other out in USC's final schedule strength.

Subjectively speaking, the results of these two games should also be a wash. Whereas presumed USC victories over Cal and UCLA will now be less impressive, the past victories over 8-1 Oregon (in Eugene) and Arizona should now appear more impressive. If anything, the results of these two games bolster the evidence supporting USC's current reputation because USC has already beaten the victors of the Cal-Oregon and Arizona-UCLA games, but has not yet played the losers of those two contests.

In addition to Zemek's poor interpretation of the results of those games, he also makes the erroneous assumption that a team's strength is partly determined by its strength of schedule. I'm not saying that strength of schedule is not a legitimate factor of a team's BCS ranking (I'm not saying it is, either, but that's a separate issue). However, for those who believe the Pac-10 is a weak conference (myself not included), one only has to look at USC's non-conference performance over the past 3 years for proof that this assumption about schedule strength is suspect.

Zemek prides himself on his sound analysis of college football. Elsewhere in this piece, he writes, "good college football journalism concerns the process of making sense of events after they happen," and, "it’s making sense of events as they occur, and especially after they occur, that counts." I couldn't resist calling him out.