Pete Carroll Commentating Last Night

No. Just being on TV talking about a football game between two teams that you don't coach does not give one a recruiting advantage. It's not like the Coach K AmEx commercials a few years back where he basically recites his recruiting speech to parents about how he wants your son to become President of the World.

Yes. I recorded the game and if you play his comments right after the game backwards, he's definitely saying, "Come to SC. We will pay you."

Be fair: Did you have a problem when Rich Rodriguez was providing an interview/commentary during the 2008 Capital One Bowl? My God is this a non-issue.

Lou Holtz wouldn't have a job.

at what point was he biased?

I don't understand how the bias affects the game. If they bring in lots of different coaches (as others have been pointing out) then they all get the same recruiting benefits and whatnot. Now, if they were to have Pete Carroll on every week, then you might have a problem.

I think bias would be a bigger issue if Carroll was a reporter or something, where his job was to present facts. For an analyst, bias is acceptable to me, provided it is reasonable and they don't try to hide that the analyst has a connection to another school.

from a false premise. Since when are Chris Fowler, Lee Corso and Desmond Howard journalists? They're television presenters. Last night, so was Pete Carroll. Seriously, take that tin foil off your head.

Neuheisel is a good guy? That's the first i've ever heard of that. And UCLA was never in the ruins. They were always competitive. The only thing that has to be tough at UCLA is recruiting a kid to play at a stadium nowhere near campus. But that's it cause UCLA is unbelievable in all aspects. If I didn't go to UofM I would've loved to go there. Amazing campus, check. Great academics, check. Awesome part of town, check. Absurd amounts of hot women, CHECK. okay, rant over.

Neuheisel left 2 major programs that had just won NCs a few years earlier, in a lot worse shape then when he got there (UW, Colorado). He had constant flirtations with other teams during his tenures there (with other college programs and the NFL) which he lied to the administrations of those schools. He commited rules violations at CU which led to them losing scholarships and being put on probation AFTER he left. He then committed numerous recruiting violations and then participated in an NCAA pool which he lied about and was going to be suspended by the NCAA for 2 years before UW's AD fired him. He also has a rep for being fake and disingenuous. Hence, the nickname "Slick Rick." But yeah, he's considered a good guy. ;) UCLA was not in ruins when he got there. Karl Dorrell won at a higher clip than Neuheisel has. Dorrell led UCLA to a bowl game in each of his 5 seasons and no lower than 5th in the Pac-10. Neuheisel has led UCLA to 1 bowl game, and no higher than 8th in the Pac 10.

S-a-r-c-a-s-m. And no, I have no respect for a coach, and a team, that cannot build a college football program that produces the Number One team in the nation every single freaking year when your campus is next door to Beverly Hills, you have palm trees, ridiculously beautiful coeds, Westwood, cool uniforms, your golf team's home course is Bel Air CC, John Wooden lives in the neighborhood and your home football field is the effing Rose Bowl. No sir, if you cannot take that, plus some pipe-hittin' brothers from East LA and Samoa and Long Beach, and build a perennial powerhouse, not to mention a team that kicks the crap out of the guys who play for that slum-school USC, then no sir, UCLA is incompetent, or cursed, or something else bad and incomprehensible, because it is a freakin' beautyful place that ought to have guys lining up to play there. They could just put their recruiting pitch on a DVD and mail them out.