OT- USC/UCLA melee
Did anyone see the end of the SC / UCLA game on Saturday night? Neuheisel called a timeout on defense down 21-7 with a minute remaining and it looked like he was going to call the other two as well. Carroll dialed up a long play-action bomb that scored on the next play and chaos erupted in the Coliseum. The SC players were hopping and the UCLA players came to midfield before the officials separated the teams. I have mixed feelings; I like Carroll and the "right-back-at-ya" move at Neuheisel, who deserved it, but I don't think it sends a good message to the kids he talks to about gang violence on the midnight drives through LA. But it is always fun to see a good melee.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^
Just like his players don't go to class.
Go Blue
November 30th, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
but I'm glad he's not our coach.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
I wonder if Carroll asked Neuheisel "what his deal was" after the game? What a hypocrite. That is just garbage
November 30th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
Saw it. I thought it was pretty tasteless.
He said something in the post-game about how he didn't like the TO call. I think that most coaches call a TO when they have 2 or 3 at the end of the game and the other team takes a knee. Carroll over-reacted after they threw the TD pass too, acting like he'd just won the game on a last second play. I thought Neuheisel enjoyed getting the ball back and making USC wait 3 or 4 more downs to leave (and taking TOs in between too). That play does add fuel to the fire for next year.
Pete should be happy, at least he didn't challenge a meaningless play in a blowout. Then I'd say throw the bomb.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
I thought it was classless and can say that I believe RR would not have retaliated like Carroll did. That makes me proud.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
is a bigger crook than Carrol. If you are going to call timeouts when the other team is in the victory formation, than you deserve whatever you get.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
They were only down 14. HIGHLY HIGLY improbable that they win the game, but you get the ball back, try for a quick score, onside kick. It's still possible. Don't blame Neuheisal at all for the timeouts. Carroll is a choch, through and through.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:24 PM ^
Okay, so how is it wrong for USC to try to score again if they could theoretically lose? Or are you not arguing that point?
November 30th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
I tend to agree with this. Harbaugh and Neuheisel have rightly tried to take shots at Carroll and USC. While I admire their gusto, they shouldn't be surprised when USC hits back. I guarantee Stanford won't win next year's game, any money.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
upset SC two years ago, people said Pete Carroll would never let that happen again.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:37 PM ^
Not to mention that Stanford was a bigger dog in that game than the horror was in Ann Arbor (same year). But for some reason the national media still brings up one and not the other...
November 30th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^
Let's be honest:
If Jim Tressel called the timeout, and then Tate threw a long bomb to Junior Hemingway next year to ice a 28-7 win, how would this board react? With righteous indignation, or "in your face sweatervest?"
November 30th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
good point
November 30th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^
Jefferson was there and the UCLA team trashed him,so he dropped them now.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
I had USC -13. The extra TD gave me some breathing room on the spread. I wish I would have seen the fireworks afterward though.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
If UCLA is going to act like they are still in the game, then USC should act the same way. I see nothing wrong with the call and I think UCLA got what they deserved for calling a TO when they had almost no shot at winning.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
If UCLA feels the game is within reach (obviously a distant reach)and calls timeouts to enhance the chance of winning the game, then isn't it Carrol's responsibility to do what he can to put the game out of reach?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
Didn't Lloyd do this to Wisconsin in 06? I remember reading the post-game and I recall Wisconsin calling a TO and Henne bombing one deep
November 30th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
This definitely happened (maybe not vs. Wisconsin but at some point in 2006), although we didn't convert it.
IIRC, we were up by 10 or so points, and Lloyd was just Lloydballing the clock out at that point. Opponent calls a TO, we play action the next pass.
I remember thinking "Ahahaha fuck you guys" as the play developed.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=262660130&period=4
Yeah it was against Wisconsin. You can see UM just trying to run the clock out but Beilema called a TO. Then Henne bombed deep, but it was picked off.
Basically I don't fault Caroll for doing what he did, but his reaction as if he had just won a championship on a meaningless TD shows he's a major d-bag.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
In 2000, Chris Perry scored a touchdown with :01 left to give us a 33-11 win... that came after some JoePa timouts with the score 27-11 and less than 30 seconds to go.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I see nothing wrong with either side her. Neuheisel was trying to force them to run the ball instead of conceding and letting them kneel out the clock. Although it was risky, Carrol's play call was genius. UCLA was forcing and expecting the run, so dumping over the top was smart, not classless.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
I saw it and it made me so glad that Harbaugh went for 2 against USC. What's your deal Pete Carroll?
November 30th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
I was at this game and can kind of see both sides to the call itself. UCLA had all three timeouts in a three score game but Carroll still went into victory formation with less than a minute to go. If Neuheisel doesn't call the timeouts he looks like he's just given up (even though his team had essentially zero chance to win). If anything, UCLA got what they wanted. SC's beat writer pointed out that after employing a conservative gameplan all day, the play-action pass was the one call that could have given UCLA a chance to get back in the game. Of course Carroll didn't want to be accused of playing Tressell-ball by his now very spoiled fanbase and the Bruins couldn't defend the play, so instead Carroll either looks like a Sensei Creese inspired genius or an asshole running up the score.
The stuff after the play was pretty much all on UCLA. They were the team whose players were well on the other side of midfield basically complaining about a call they would have loved if only they had defended it better (if they pick it off or sack Barkley they would have laughed at Carroll's hubris).
December 1st, 2009 at 2:45 AM ^
You almost have to throw out all of the chivalry in a rivalry game... almost.
I don't really like Carroll, but I can certainly understand his motives.