It's official... Carroll knew football sanctions are coming...
Per ESPN... USC source has confirmed receipt of NCAA Infraction Committee's report (which include basketball AND FOOTBALL). Meeting scheduled in Feb. School would have had to received notice at least 90 days in advance (time allowed to respond per rules).
He knew back in ~November...
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncb/news/story?id=4816942
January 11th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^
He is the head coach, I would expect him to know....
January 11th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
acknowledged hearing anything from NCAA. Of course as HC he'd be one of the first, but if you believed the school, nothing was coming down yet.
It's the timing in question, not the fact he'd know or not.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
If we all know about the infractions, then he as the head coach better know about the infractions.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
you cut out the most important part: the NCAA report included football infractions. while everyone pines on about how they OBVIOUSLY (sic.) did shit, this is one of the first times that it's been reported the football team is specifically facing allegations. that's the news IMO.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
I just assumed everyone would associate Carroll with the football side, but good point... will edit.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^
i may be behind in the news (hey Colt McCoy is gonna be awesome against Alabama! can't wait for that game!!oneeleven!1) but this was the first i heard that the NCAA's investigations were dealing with USC football and not just basketball. everyone knew they were boned on basketball but i, along with the millions (AND THE MILLYUNS) of the people who read sporting news figured football was somehow going to get away with the crap pre-Bush and post-Bush. not so it appears.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
Sad to see he sold the recruits a bill of goods; that's just pathetic. Bad luck to you in the NFL Pete.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
...this news is delicious to me.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
he should have to deal with this when he comes slinking back to whatever school is desperate enough to hire him.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
that might be that desparate in 2 to 3 years!!
;)
January 11th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
This is getting to be as frustrating as people who consistently misspell Weis. PC was 33-31 in the NFL. That's above average for an NFL coaching record.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
I tend to think of a .516 winning percentage as the very definition of average. Though I would agree with your main point which is that he was not the atomic failure that people think he is/was. Your point led me to find a handy site with the relevant info:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/
Pete is #78 out of 151 coaches that have had at least 50 career games.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
Winning percentages at the college level and NFL levels are different though. Top teams over a period of time, say Urban at Florida or PC at USC would be in the ballpark of .800+ or higher. Coaches like Bill Belichick, who obviously is considered to be dominant, have a winning percentage at just .600+. It's always surprising to me when ESPN shows the winning percentages of some of the NFL all-time greats. Usually they aren't all that great.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^
The winning percentages are different in the NFL. Basically, the NFL is set up to encourage parity, where college football is set up to encourage a de facto caste system.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
Winning percentage aside, he's generally seen as taking the Patriots that Parcells took to the SB and running that team in to the ground. Not sure if it is fair to blame him entirely, but that is where his bad rep comes from.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^
Exactly, I'm not 100% on this but he took over after Parcells took them to the SB and his final year they were 6-10. His first year was 10-6 i believe, Pete did drive them into the ground IMO. As a Pats fan i was glad to see him go no matter how many picks they had to give up.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
Under Carroll, the Pats got slightly worse every year (10-6, 9-7, and then 8-8 in his final year). Not a great run, but not driving them into the ground, either.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CarrPe0.htm
With a lot of the same talent, Belichick struggled at first after succeeding Carroll, going 5-11 in his first season before rebounding to win the Super Bowl in his second.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^
He is such a celebrated college coach that the expectations he will be up against, he almost has to turn the Seahawks(!) to the playoffs next year. Saban, Spurrier, Erickson, and the rest of the list Peter King mentioned in MMQB all failed as "Big Time" college coaches who tried their hand at the NFL. Jimmy Johnson was the only one that was a success.
I guess me saying that he was a failure in the past is more based on the fact that NFL owners/GMs don't want two games over 50%. Every front office is under intense pressure to go deep into the playoffs, and coaches that hover around 8-8 get fired all the time. Was he under the best circumstances with the Jets or Pats? Probably not, but nor will he be in Seattle. Taking out money and ego(admittedly two huge factors at this level) I highly doubt he would leave USC if it weren't for the sanctions coming their way. He is a success because he can recruit and motivate kids who want to reach the NFL. You think having Will Ferrell come to practice is going to make Matt Hasselbeck practice any different? Doubtful, but I'm sure Mark Sanchez and the like were impressed.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
I wonder if when the Infraction committee meets in February if that will also be when our situation is discussed. If it is, that's probably good because it means that they have bigger fish to fry. If it isn't, that's probably also good because I would tend to think it means nothing is going to come of it.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
I'd say so...RichRod's hours issue vs. inappropriate benefits to players in different sports and what looks like limited institutional control.
I doubt much happens with SC until the court case involving Bush is heard since that is the forum from which the NCAA can collect sworn evidence (since Bush has no requirement to talk to them).
January 11th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
of what many are assuming. It could mean the report is not that bad, and the penalties for the USC football program will likely not be severe. For two reasons:
1. I'm not sure that Seattle would hire him if it were something extreme. No way Paul Allen has not seen that report.
2. Carroll's leaving gives the school a chance to start with a new regime, untainted by the Bush and/or McKnight (at best a minor recruiting violation) scandals. They lose a few scholarships for a while, but Del Rio or whoever they hire will still be taking over a very young and very good team.
My guess is the report will place the blame on Bush himself, saying the university did not know about it. The NCAA will still hold the university accountable, but not in any extreme way.
Although honestly I would love to see them go unbeaten next year and then not be allowed to compete in the playoff. [Brian is right -- the current BCS system is a playoff.] Vacating past victories is lame -- if you want to penalize Bush, you need to have players coming into the NFL hating him for taking their own chance at a national championship away from them.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
1. I don't think Seattle cares about these infractions whatsoever. Unless he's going to jail, all they care about is whether he can coach.
2. The NCAA wouldn't be punishing USC based solely on the actions of Carroll, but the institution as a whole. If they want to snuff out this type of behavior as well as they can, they need to bring the hammer down hard.
It will be interesting to see what happens though.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
All of the SC allegations (up until Joe McKnight was immediately suspended a few weeks ago and essentially booted from the program) revolve around Reggie Bush and his family allegedly receiving benefits from a convict with no connection to the university who wanted to become Bush's agent.
I don't see any substantive difference between this and the relationship between Charles Woodson and Marion Darnell Jones (Jones was at the Heisman Trophy presentation and Woodson signed with him a day after the Rose Bowl). Jones was also a shady character who ended up going to jail for ripping off his clients (Woodson avoid having to testify under oath when Jones plead guilty to criminal charges).
Why does one program deserve to "have the hammer brought down" on them while we view the other as squeaky clean?
Also, if you see a university wide issue at USC, I would point out that Ed Martin was still writing checks for our basketball players at the exact same time. I doubt those clamoring for USC to get crushed by the NCAA would have the same view of the exact same facts if/when they took place at Michigan.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
I'm not sure why you got negged. UM basketball was pretty shady back in the day.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
A few major differences and why USC's case is much worse:
- IIRC, the Yahoo! stories that first really covered this discussed how PC intentionally created an atmosphere where this was likely--agents in the locker rooms, for example
- Michigan took drastic action to ensure that the allegations against us were fully investigated--had we not, there may not have been enough evidence to sanction us and this was definitely noticed by the NCAA. USC did the exact opposite, hoping that they could prevent their investigation from getting anywhere and I really hope the NCAA takes that into consideration.
- This happened at the same time the USC basketball coach is literally handing money out to land recruits.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^
1. The Yahoo! stories came entirely from information gleamed from Bush's alleged benefactors. These are people who had been convicted of perjury and sold their stories (the writers of Tarnished Heisman paid them for their info). They were also suing Bush to get back the money they had allegedly given. No comparison was made to agent access at other programs and no real evidence was ever offered to suggest that Pete Carroll and staff encouraged this kind of behavior (in fact they have had to fight to keep these kind of people away for a long time, rightfully fearful of what kind of damage they might do to the program).
2. Michigan took no actions that I'm aware of to investigate the relationship between Jones and Woodson. At a minimum Woodson was almost certainly ineligible to play in the Rose Bowl, but this issue has never been addressed by anyone at UM as far as I know.
3. Again, Woodson's benefits took place at the same time that multiple UM basketball players were involved in one of the worst "extra benefits" scandals in recent memory. If we are going to hold programs responsible for what happens campus wide, Michigan football in 1997-98 was no different than USC football now.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
if Carroll was about to be hammered for knowing about Bush's behavior (or whatever else) and turning a blind eye, the resulting disgrace and general media frenzy could affect his ability to coach the Seahawks. The stink could reach Seattle. There must be at least a few players there who lost in college to Pete's Trojans -- they could resent him for it if he was breaking the rules in some scandalous way.
2. Yeah, I don't know what to expect. I mean, they really have no way to reach Bush and, if truly at fault, Carroll. Maybe tar and feathers? I hear there's a sale on pitchforks at Home Depot this week...
January 11th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
Lofa Tatupu and Lawrence Jackson are on the Seahawks. Plus, I doubt players hold grudges that long against opposing coaches.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Is it true that if Carroll takes some of his people with him to the NFL, the NCAA can't subpoena Carroll/those who leave with him? Put differently, once someone is no longer employed by the university in question are they no longer obligated to talk to the NCAA?
If that's the case, I can't imagine he wouldn't take some of his assistants with him even though they may not be the best fit for Seattle/a pro team just to protect themselves/whatever they're hiding.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
As far as I know the NCAA lacks any kind of legal subpoena power. If you work or play at the college level, you have to answer their questions or they can sanction your school, but once you're outof college they can't touch you (aside from taking you out of the history books). So if Carroll never wants to coach at the college level again he can just ignore them.
I understand that was one of the problems with Reggie Bush, he just didn't return their calls since he is in New Orleans, making money there. Only way Bush could have ended up in legal trouble was if the IRS went after him for not reporting the benefits as income and paying taxes.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^
I don't have a definite answer to your question, but I do not believe the NCAA employs any legal authority with the power to compel people to testify.
I imagine it is similar to the relationship between the US and the United Nations.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^
The NCAA does not have subpoena power, that was the whole problem with the Reggie Bush case.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:42 PM ^
Using this logic that only people employed by the university can be subpoenaed, how could an investigation ever be carried out? I mean Ed Martin, Bush's agent and whoever gave McKnight his car are not official employees of the university and McKnight won't be in college much longer either.
Can someone with a bit of legal or NCAA knowledge clarify?
January 12th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
Two possibilties:
- Asking the people in question for an interview and hoping they accept. Lots of people with the USC investigation have been declining the interview so far, which is why the investigation is going so slow
- Piggybacking on a court case that can subpoena the people in question. The NCAA investigation into the Ed Martin scandal only turned up minor violations until Martin was indicted for money laundering.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
The FBI got involved, that's how it got blown open.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:51 AM ^
cannot subpoena those outside of its umbrella, that's true.
Howeva!
In the lawsuit between Bush and the agents, the court ruled to allow state authorities to interview Bush and Carroll regarding the facts of the case, and that information will be in the public domain, so the NCAA can use it in its investigation.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
if it's true that the NCAA already turned their nose up at some self-suggested football punishment, then I'm leaning on the heavier side.
Also, just the fact that they may have already suggested their own punishment and been denied, makes it astounding that Pete would "play dumb" up through his answers as to why he took the Seattle job.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:13 PM ^
What, you can't blame this on President Bush too, can you?
/END POLITICS
January 11th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
I think it's bullshit that Pete will walk away with a new 7 million dollar/year job while current & future USC players pay for his fuck-ups.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
It sucks, but at least he's coaching a different level of football. Calipari being at Kentucky pisses me off. He should be suspended from coaching by the NCAA, if not banned entirely.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
I think all current USC football players should be allowed to transfer without having to sit for a year. No reason the current kids should suffer. Also the massive loss of off talent would be an extra penalty for schools to worry about.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^
especially if the best of said players play at UM next year. Otherwise.......no.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
For some, yes. For others, who knows what other 5* recruits came in with a Bush or McKnight type situation?
January 11th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
Carrol is leaving USC because he is going to be guaranteed more money in his contract with Seattle than he would by staying at USC for many more years. If Carrol gets canned after two seasons he still gets paid while two programs in two different leagues drop off. I doubt the infractions really had anything to do with it. The NCAA won't touch USC and he knows it.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
Carroll knew about this assistant's drug addiction (with drugs he got from usc doctors) and kept him on the staff in spite of it
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/11/usc.watson/in…
January 11th, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^
Sad about the car accident for the victim; drug addiction is also a serious issue for that coach. It's like rats jumping from a sinking ship, it seems. Indeed, how long before we see more and "expose" articles and players/ex-coaches spilling?
January 11th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I was just listening to his press conference on 710ESPN over here in so-cal area. I only listened shortly because I had to return to work, but here is what I found interesting:
1) He thinks the recruiting class will end strong and that they should not loose that many commitments.
2) Current players are encouraging recruits to stick with their commitment because according to Pete, USC is a great institution to play for.
3) The coming infractions did not play a factor in his decision.
4) He said that they have been dealing with the investigation for close to 5 years and nothing has changed.
As per usual he seemed very carefree even making a joke about the compliance department.
I just hope he is wrong about the recruits staying with SC.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^
Does this mean that michigan wins the 3 rose bowls that they lost against usc?
January 11th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
From other thread... they'd just be vacated (no winner).
January 11th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
Michigan lost 2 against USC... one against Tejas... I could have sworn we were going to block that field goal...