Carroll keeping silent commits
So if Manti Te'o wouldn't have committed to USC, Notre Dame would've had less of a chance to get him? I might be wrong, but it just doesn't seem very logical. Being committed to a school will sure attract some negative recruiting, but the lack of a verbal commitment will attract a lot more other schools towards the kid to begin with.
There's a couple thoughts I have with this. If a kid is committed, it's easier to bash one school, rather than 10.
It's also a good PR move, because if they were never committed, then they can't technically decommit either.
I would think that it would be easier for a silent commit to decommit, there is no hit to the pride. Some of these kids think the world of themselves, it has to be hard to let the world know that their word is worth nothing. Probably why you see signs of kids getting ready to decommit...it they are silent it would be easy, a clean break...nobody would know.
Nice article.
Thanks, Tom
So Pete Carroll has to work a little bit to get recruits big deal. Welcome to the rest of college football Pete. I have always had mad respect for USC and their recruiting efforts but Carroll has been annoying me as of late. His antics during Sanchez's press conference were rediculous. He is just affraid he is actually going to have to start coaching instead of just putting out a team of 5 stars and run over people. Me and my buddies got into a big argument about USC the other night...the premise of the arguement was that USC shouldn't lose a game until the National Championship and Pete Carroll is overrated.
That's bold. By the way, even with Sanchez leaving, USC's got 5 stars waiting to start at QB. Most people agree that as a QB, staying all 4 years is beneficial. Why is it malicious when a coach says it about his player? Could he actually have been looking out for Sanchez's best interest?
No team has had the success over the last 7 or 8 years that USC has, so to call Pete Carroll overrated in a bit much. The fact that you and your buddies came to the conclusion that "USC shouldn't lose a game until the National Championship" means Pete Carroll has done a pretty good job with the program, and thus should be highly rated. Keep in mind that the years preceding Carroll USC was a mediocre football team.
My main point of contention with your comment is this: If he believes it is best for his player, he should say it to the player. Public statements, on the other hand, should only support the player's decision once it is made.
I'm not going to argue that what Carroll has done at USC is unimpressive, I just think that it's difficult to truly say that his accomplishments separate him from some of the other great coaches in college football. If you look at the location in terms of both weather and talent pool, the tradition and history of that program, and the high academic reputation of USC, you have to wonder what great coach wouldn't have been able to do what Pete Carroll has done at Southern Cal. Of the top five or ten coaches in the country, I think that at least Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Bob Stoops (in spite of his big game performances), Les Miles, and maybe even Rich Rodriguez (based on the dominating running game of West Virginia) could have done better at USC under the same conditions. He's a great coach, but I think that Carroll is much more Mack Brown or Lloyd Carr than Urban Meyer.
I will admit that his preparation for the Rose Bowl is unbelievable. I don't care if that game is in USC's backyard, they are ludicrously prepared for their opponent every year.
Carroll has a great talent pool.
He has won a lot of games, a couple national championships, etc.
But it seems like you're basically saying he can't be a great coach because of all that talent. If you put a great coach with such awesome talent, would they win the national championship every single year?
Urban Meyer has great talent but hasn't won the NC every year.
Roy Williams has great talent but hasn't won the NC every year.
Joe Torre is a great manager but hasn't won the World Series every year.
There are too many variables for someone to win the whole thing much more often. Injuries, inexperience, players leaving early for the draft, etc. It's practically indefensible when you say Rodriguez might be a better coach, because Rodriguez has only had success in a weak conference (the Big East) and he's never won a national championship.
Carroll is a great coach. If you think having a ton of talent just automatically guarantees that a guy will have great success, ask John Robinson. Or Charlie Weis. Or Bobby Bowden. Or John Cooper.
(By the way, the location thing is overblown. Yeah, it's sunny Southern California. USC is also in the hood.)
Read my post again, Magnus, I tried to emphasize the fact that I believe that Carroll is one of the best coaches in college football. I even called him a great coach, said that his accomplishments at USC are impressive, and that he is similar to Lloyd Carr and Mack Brown, two of the best coaches in recent college football history.
I also never said that Carroll has to win the championship every year to meet expectations. In fact, I made a point not to even mention the number of championships that Carroll has won (which is 1 or 2, depending on who you ask) since he's been at USC, because I didn't want to make it look like I was arguing that "OMG, he don't win the supa bolez so he sux!" Where you got the idea that my argument was that Carroll has to win one every year is mind boggling to me.
My point is that Carroll is likely not the best coach, maybe not even a top five coach, because of all the perks that come with his job as the head coach of USC. Meyer, Stoops, Saban, Miles, and yes, possibly even Rodriguez (his teams won two BCS bowls with talent that is much, much worse than USC's) could have accomplished more, in my opinion. That is not to say that Carroll isn't a great coach.
to the point of absurdity. Pete Carroll is easily one of the top three coaches in all of college football. You can't make the argument that just because he does it with more talent he is not as good a coach as Rich Rodriguez. The beauty is he doesn't have to do it with less talent. His track record speaks for itself. He is the most successful active coach out there. The records make this argument for me. Sports is statistically based. Over the past 8 years no coach has compiled a record as good as his. Pete Carroll is nothing like Lloyd Carr or Urban Meyer. If you want to make the argument that those two guys are the complete opposite ends of the spectrum then Pete Carroll almost certainly lies dead center. He changes his personnel to get the balls in the hands of his best players just like Urban Meyer is trying to do. Unlike Meyer his offense is a Pro Style, just like Carr.
I understand, "best coach," is subjective. But, like, really? You are going to say the winningest coach this decade may not be one of the top five coaches in college football.
Where would you rate him in the list of biggest d-bags in college coaching? Maybe a couple of spots behind Charlie?
Fine, there is no way in hell that Rich Rodriguez could ever be as successful as Pete Carroll, even though Rodriguez is a great deal younger than Pete Carroll. I am looney for ever suggesting that at some point in time Rodriguez could achieve a level of success that is equivalent to 2 championships in 8 years. How silly of me.
Moving on, I know that people go a little crazy when others question statistics, but yes, I am suggesting that there is a chance that the statistics are somewhat misleading. The truth is that Urban Meyer has won two national championships in three years at a school with much less tradition (though there is tradition, of course) than USC. Meyer is poised to win his third this season. That is no fluke. Bob Stoops is able to assemble an offense that scores an absurd number of points and a team that is annually in the top five or ten. That is no fluke. Les Miles has giant balls and Nick Saban can recruit like a mofo and seems to be on the verge of winning another championship soon.
Is it really that crazy to think that maybe, if things were reversed, and Pete Carroll was coaching at, say, LSU or Oklahoma rather than USC, that he would not be the winningest coach in football since 2001? Maybe. My key word is maybe. I'm saying that it may be true. I am NOT saying that Carroll isn't great. I'm not saying that Carroll=Lloyd Carr. I'm saying that maybe, in the alternate reality kingdom of maybes, that maybe Carroll is maybe not the best coach in football maybe just because he has won more games than everyone else maybe
Are you forgetting how mediocre USC was in the years before Carroll took that job? They hadn't been a real national power since the 1980s. Paul Hackett certainly didn't take advantage of USC's recruiting base, nor did the late-era John Robinson.
Everyone that is high on Pete Carroll...if you take him away from USC do you still think he would have the same success? Would you argue that he could go to Nebraska or Tennessee tomorrow and have similar success? I honestly don't think he could. He is in the perfect situation right now which I think over shadows some of his inabilities.
He's not at Nebraska or Tennessee. That question is irrelevant. He's at USC - which was a bad program in the 1990s, so it's possible - and he's winning championships and producing 1st round talent and producing Heisman winners.
Tim Tebow. That is why he sucks!
How is that question irrelevant? My whole thing with Pete Carroll is that I believe he is more a product of USC than strictly the be all end all of coaching. If you take him away from SC and put him at Tennessee/Nebraska, both similar situations to USC before Pete got there, do you think he would have the same success? I don't think he would. He is the perfect coach for the school and has done an awesome job. And for the record USC wasn't horrible in the 90's, they did beat Northwestern in the Rose Bowl and Pete was handed the future 1st pick in the draft when he got there. You are right he produces 1st round talent and Heisman winners which I think you will agree makes it a lot easier to coach.
Of course good talent makes it easier to coach. But first of all, he's the one bringing the talent there. Sure, Carson Palmer came before Pete Carroll got there, but they averaged around a .500 win percentage in the 90's and weren't bringing in much as far as talent. So don't make it seem like a PC has nothing to do with their recruiting. Also, not everyone with talent wins as much as he does. Every year since 2002 USC has been a team that no one wanted to play. Every year. No other team can claim that. The fact that this wasn't the case before PC got there means the credit should go to him.
It's irrelevant because it's not relevant.
We are talking about Pete Carroll. Pete Carroll is the coach at USC. I have no idea how he would do at Nebraska or Tennessee, because he's not there. You want to talk about hypotheticals; I want to talk about real life.
USC wasn't good before Pete Carroll got there. Now they are very excellently good.
UCLA has the same advantages as USC. Why hasn't UCLA been a juggernaut? Because Pete Carroll doesn't coach for them.
I ask again, what more do you want from Pete Carroll? As soon as you admit that he has to win a national championship every year for you to be satisfied, this will start to make more sense. Until then, I'll just assume that you're downplaying his success because you're jealous of his awesome hair.
Pete does have awesome hair. And he's good at surfing. He's my neighbor and we've gone surfing together. I've also had beers with him at the bar by my house. Does that make me better than you? Most likely.
EDIT: I also live down the street from Wee man. He actually drives a car, and I'd really like to know how.
You were better than me for a second, until you said you live near Wee Man. But now I'm better than you because I met the guy who did the voice for Sebastian the Crab.
That is pretty awesome, you are henceforth better than me. But only you. I would totally ask him to sing "Under the Sea" every time I saw him. I love that song.
Kevin Nealon lives on my street too, he walks his baby by my house every Saturday morning. I always say hi, and he just started saying hi back.
He probably wasn't talking to you.
You're right. He probably had a bluetooth in and just happened to be looking in my direction. God I hate that.
The hair is sweet I will give you that. I don't want him to win a National Championship every year I just don't want him to lose to OSU so USC can play in a bowl other then the Rose Bowl and thus when Michigan finishes 11-1 this year then can play Texas in the Rose Bowl instead...wait nevermind.
I do think the stories about Pete going into the hood in the middle of the night are pretty cool though. I don't know if you guys have heard this, put apparently he randomly goes into the hood at like 2 in the morning and kicks it with the locals. He gets people jobs and makes sure no one messes with any of his kids. That is awesome!
I agree that Pete Carrol coaching at USC, (from the overused colloquial wall street term) provides leverage for his success.
Take him out of that environment and put him somewhere else, and I don't think he does nearly as well. But then again, who would? It's really a perfect situation for USC.
You could say this for many, many great coaches. That's why I think it's a silly point.
Would Bo Schembechler's power run game have worked if he had run it in the SEC?
Would Urban Meyer be winning national championships if he were in the MAC?
Would Tom Osborne have been successful running the triple option in the Big Ten or the SEC?
Would Vince Lombardi still be considered a great coach if he coached in the 2000s instead?
It's impossible to say. Great coaches are a product of their time, their systems, and their environments. To say "He wouldn't be a great coach if he didn't have ______________" is ridiculous, because he DOES HAVE those things.
That's like me saying, "Mike Hart wouldn't have been a great running back if he didn't have good balance."
Well, holy shit, I guess that's true. Mike Hart must not have been a great running back, because if we took his balance away from him, he would have got tackled easier.
well at that point you are evaluating the skill-set over the individual.
What I'm saying is, I think the skill-set can be greatly amplified in certain situations. Peter Carrol at USC being one of them.
This level of amplification can be unique to the individual, which is why some thrive, as you mention, in certain settings.
Pete Carroll has done a tremendous job with the program I 100% agree with you on that. But one can argue he has done it with great recruiting instead of great coaching. If you are a great coach, you shouldn't lose to Oregon State every other year and a crappy UCLA team and that is why I think he is a bit overrated. I am sick of his teams getting all pumped up to play the big games (OSU last year) and then lose to some team they have no business losing to. While I agree Sanchez should have stayed I still think Pete Carroll handled that situation poorly. You didn't see Mark Richt giving Matt Stafford some lame handshake as he walked right by him and then tell the media he thought it was a mistake he was leaving. If that is the way Pete feels then he should have kept that between Sanchez and himself. And to your point, he has 2 four stars and 1 five star freshmen waiting in the wings I really don't know what he is so upset about.
Again I am not overrating his ability to recruit, he is the best in the business, but I do think with the players he gets he needs to do a little more for me other then cruising through the Pac 10 and then crushing some Big Ten team in a virtual home game every year.
What more do you want from him?
Again, some of you seem to be saying that he's not living up to his standards if he's not winning the national championship every year.
If he's not a great coach, who is? Urban Meyer lost to Ole Miss this past year, and he lost four games the year before that. So is he not a great coach?
Joe Paterno lost to Michigan for a decade. Does that mean he's not a great coach?
Bob Stoops has lost his last few BCS bowls. Does that mean he's not a great coach?
You say he "needs to do more." What more do you want? Even the greatest of coaches loses games. Vince Lombardi didn't have a winning percentage of 100%. Neither did Bo Schembechler or Fielding Yost. Nobody does.
The thing is, he's set such a high standard for success that some of you think anything less than perfection is failure. I think you need to gain some perspective.
(Also, recruiting is part of coaching. So to say he's a great recruiter but maybe not a great coach is kind of silly. It's called "talent evaluation." He brings in players that he knows he can coach and who will work well with his team. You can't toss that out the window and say "Just because he's a good talent evaluator and can tell which players will be good doesn't mean that he's a good coach." Being a good coach involves a vast array of skills, but the sum product is winning - and he's done that.)
I think he is a great coach. I think he is definitely top 10, top 5 no. My whole thing with Pete is that he is more a product of his environment (Great recruiter, great school, hot girls, great weather, Snoop Dogg, great tradition, the Coliseum, Rose Bowl, etc.) Take him away from all of that and I think he isn't nearly as successful.
You're right. If you make him a poor recruiter at a crappy school with ugly girls, cold weather, Travis Tritt, no tradition, and crappy facilities, I bet he would be a great deal less successful. You win.
LOl, so basically put him at Wisconsin and see how he does. Listen, I think Pete is a great coach but you have to admit it is A LOT easier to win at USC and that should be considered when talking about him among the greats.
To quote my boy Ron Burgandy, "agree to disagree".
If it's so easy to win at USC, why were they a .500 program for much of the previous decade?
made in the history of ever.
The fact that USC craps the bed at least once per season reflects a deficit in the coaches' ability to keep players motivated.
Why do people keep saying that USC coughs up a game each year? How many freaking teams can go through every year undefeated? How many teams can do it even occasionally? The only real bed crapping that happened was Stanford at home. Holy cow Michigan has never done this! Losing to teams in your own conference occasionally happens. Get over it people.
Losing on the road in a hostile environment to Oregon State is not losing at home to Toledo. Losing in a rivalry game to UCLA when your quarterback is hobbled and gimpy is not Appy State. I'm sorry to bring up stinging memories, but seriously "craps the bed at least once per season"?
haha, you're a funny guy.
he's basically bobby bowden?
They arent silent recruits.
He is just waiting to set them up with agents so they can get paid to play college ball.
Has anyone considered this angle(?): College coaches could eventually (if they aren't currently) ask their recruits to "commit silently" (yet firmly) such that other teams (rivals?) competing for said recruit's signature will waste their time and either reach signing day (1) empty-handed or (2) with less desirable "scraps" to fill the position.
Of course, this would involve slimy indoctrination and manipulation of high school recruits. I admit that. However, that doesn't mean it isn't happening/hasn't happened (in fact, some conspiracy theorists argue Tressel did this against Rodriguez with Pryor, though I admittedly feel differently). Additionally, I'd be surprised if there were any NCAA rules concerned with this potential "loop hole".
already happening.
I am not arguing with you, but I have to comment anyway:
Can you please substantiate that comment somehow?
Terrelle Pryor, allegedly?
"He's a great coach, but I think that Carroll is much more .... Lloyd Carr"
This is one of the most hilarious statements ever made on MGoBlog.
Notice how you have to add an ellipse to make what I said "one of the most hilarious statements ever?" That's because you left out 2/3 of the information in that sentence. If someone made the statement "I'd rather have sex with Angelina Jolie than Jim Tressel," you could cut out most of that sentence and be left with "I'd..have sex with...Jim Tressel" and then it would become LOLZ hilarious. The problem is, you can't just cut and paste what you want to be said, you have to go by what was actually said.
The statement I made was that "Pete Carroll is much more Mack Brown or Lloyd Carr than Urban Meyer," meaning that I believe that Carroll relies on talent to win in a similar fashion to Mack Brown and Lloyd Carr than he relies on pure coaching awesomeness like Urban Meyer does.
Now, was that so hard to understand?
What? You'd have sex with Jim Tressel?
NOT A TRUE MICHIGAN MAN
Why don't you look in the mirror, MaizeAndBlueWahoo?
"Jim Tressel...A TRUE MICHIGAN MAN"
GASP! SCANDAL!
I totally agree with you which is why I think his coaching abilities are a little overrated. His recruiting skills are the best around which makes up for it the majority of the team.