Now Pete won't get in trouble for paying his players...

http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/4808557?body=Now%20Pete%20won't%20get%20in%20trouble%20for%20paying%20his%20players...

USC is about to tank it again, too. If Pete Carroll leaves USC, they are in trouble. Of course, they are in trouble now, because he lost all of his great coordinators the last 2 years--and it shows. I guarantee he takes that job.

I think Pete knows that the NCAA is about to lay the hammer on the USC athletic department.

Sounds like a GREAT time to schedule them. Hey, we have some openings in 2011. Let's line them up!

33311710 wrote:
Sounds like a GREAT time to schedule them. Hey, we have some openings in 2011. Let's line them up!

I like the way you think. :)

33311710 wrote:
Sounds like a GREAT time to schedule them. Hey, we have some openings in 2011. Let's line them up!

openings...are you talking about their recruits or our schedule...



Either way. Let's take it.

craigoscarson wrote:
I think Pete knows that the NCAA is about to lay the hammer on the USC athletic department.

Wasn't it just last year Carroll was saying that some guys are college coaches and not NFL ones? That he was quite happy with what he was doing/building at USC. It would seem that he might be getting out before the ship goes down. He knows he's run it into the iceberg and he's getting the lifeboat launched while the rest of the boat is still listening to Nearer My God to Thee.

As others have said, I really think he might be leaving to get out before it hits the fan. Wouldn't it be something if the ncaa had in store a death penalty for the Trojans? (insert bad OJ Simpson joke here)

And if Carroll really is getting out before it hits the fan, and you are a young, up-and-coming head coach (i.e., Sarkisian) why would you consider USC before knowing what the NCAA might do to the program?

I'm not into the recruiting dynamics as some but how does USC's (potential) downfall affect us? I know that we go head to head with USC on some key players...does this change things? Was it due to Carroll or do kids just want to play at USC?

It's both, but Petey has really done a lot to improve USC's recruiting. USC had really ceased to be a power for several years until they got Pete. The biggest impact could be that kids won't want to play for a team under an ncaa-mandated post season ban. Also, if they lose 10 scholarships, it's going to hurt.

byutx wrote:
It's both, but Petey has really done a lot to improve USC's recruiting. USC had really ceased to be a power for several years until they got Pete. The biggest impact could be that kids won't want to play for a team under an ncaa-mandated post season ban. Also, if they lose 10 scholarships, it's going to hurt.

Perhaps even more importantly, what does this mean for the pac-10. Without, who am I kidding, even with USC they are basically just another conference posing as a powerhouse. PAC-10 is going to have a very hard time staying ahead of the MWC without USC dominating year in and year out. You could already argue that the MWC is a stronger conference. I don't know if I buy it, but the argument would be interesting.

declocoug wrote:

It's both, but Petey has really done a lot to improve USC's recruiting. USC had really ceased to be a power for several years until they got Pete. The biggest impact could be that kids won't want to play for a team under an ncaa-mandated post season ban. Also, if they lose 10 scholarships, it's going to hurt.

Perhaps even more importantly, what does this mean for the pac-10. Without, who am I kidding, even with USC they are basically just another conference posing as a powerhouse. PAC-10 is going to have a very hard time staying ahead of the MWC without USC dominating year in and year out. You could already argue that the MWC is a stronger conference. I don't know if I buy it, but the argument would be interesting.

That would be interesting. Here's how the top several teams (we'll start with bowl eligible teams) would stack up right now in my opinion. This is based on conference standings AND bowl performance and is just an initial ranking.



1. TCU-undeniably the best

2. BYU-similar game vs. Utah (our rival), more impressive win for us vs. OSU (their rival)-tie goes to the Y

3. Oregon-Beat #4 below; most everything below is just conjecture

4. Utah-

5. Air Force

6. Oregon State

7. USC

8. Wyoming

9. UCLA

10. Cal

11. Stanford

12. Arizona

byutx wrote:
That would be interesting. Here's how the top several teams (we'll start with bowl eligible teams) would stack up right now in my opinion. This is based on conference standings AND bowl performance and is just an initial ranking.



1. TCU-undeniably the best

2. BYU-similar game vs. Utah (our rival), more impressive win for us vs. OSU (their rival)-tie goes to the Y

3. Oregon-Beat #4 below; most everything below is just conjecture

4. Utah-

5. Air Force

6. Oregon State

7. USC

8. Wyoming

9. UCLA

10. Cal

11. Stanford

12. Arizona

I would agree with your top 3, but after that, it's more cloudy. Seriously, who has AFA beaten? USC at least has a road win over Ohio State. Also, AFA lost to both Minn. and Navy. Decent, but not great, teams. USC lost on the road to Washington, but remember, Washington has both USC's OC and DC from last year as its HC and DC, respectively. That gave Washington a huge advantage against USC. Also, Wyoming did nothing remarkable other than beat Fresno St. FRESNO ST!!!! Ohio St. they ain't. So putting the Cowboys at 8th and ahead of the remaining Pac 10 teams is MWC goggled lunacy.



Stanford has a ground game that would obliterate AF's defense. In a game of matchups, I just don't see AFA beating Gerhart's Cardinal.



OSU might have struggled against UNLV, but it was a road game to LV and early in the season, when OSU typically doesn't excel. So I wouldn't punish OSU much for that game.



Outside of the top 3, I really think the rest of the MWC would struggle to find another bowl eligible team if they played a PAC 10 schedule.



As for USC's pending problems. If it is limited to Bush's getting a home for a much reduced rent for his family without SC's knowledge, then SC will get a reprimand, possibly lose a few scholies, but that's about it. Given how rampant cheating is in the SEC and the Big 12, what SC did is trivial.



Not to discount what Bush did, but unless the NCAA finds more than that, there justisn't any there there.



I really think Carroll got an offer he couldn't pass up at Seattle. It looks like he'll be the GM as well as the HC, so he gets to run the show, much like he does at USC. ALso, he manages inflated egos at USC so I think he would be able to handle the same in the NFL.



I know some on this board don't respect Carroll for how he discourages LDS athletes from serving missions, but it's a two way street. If the young man really wanted to serve a mission, Carroll would not be an obstacle. Also, Carroll gives back to the community in ways that I admire. Unless there is more to USC's problems than the Bush incident, I see this as much ado about nothing.



Lastly, the death penalty will not be given to a program like USC. Alabama has had repeated violations and they just got a title. SO much for the NCAA's watchdogness. :sick:

It's not just the Reggie Bush deal, it's Joe McKnight, it's Oj Mayo, etc. etc. etc.



I think we've only scratched the surface.



If the NCAA is willing to send a such a harsh message to an individual player like Dez Bryant (for lying about hanging out with a pro athlete for a weekend) then imagine what the NCAA is considering in light of the coverups in LA. The 1st obvious sign of worry was the USC self inflicted post season hoops ban, etc. This just happens to be more writing on the wall for that athletic program.

The Mayo situation is basketball, not football. McKnight's situation also is cloudy. I still haven't seen a strong enough case against USC to justify more than what the basketball program has done to itself already or to destroy the football program, which is one of the premier programs in all of college sports. USC's popularity is due in part because there is no NFL team to compete with it. Don't think the NCAA is aware of that and will factor that in meting out punishment, if any, on the football team.

CougarPeasant wrote:
The Mayo situation is basketball, not football. McKnight's situation also is cloudy. I still haven't seen a strong enough case against USC to justify more than what the basketball program has done to itself already or to destroy the football program, which is one of the premier programs in all of college sports. USC's popularity is due in part because there is no NFL team to compete with it. Don't think the NCAA is aware of that and will factor that in meting out punishment, if any, on the football team.

Indiana was the flagship hoops program not long ago and the NCAA blew that place up.



I don't think USC merits a death penalty, but it think it's quite obvious that they've not run a clean program.



The Mayo situation only brings more light to an athletic department that hasn't policed itself and draws more attention to the entire department.

The NCAA has combined the investigations of the football and basketball programs.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Lawboy wrote:
USC is about to tank it again, too. If Pete Carroll leaves USC, they are in trouble. Of course, they are in trouble now, because he lost all of his great coordinators the last 2 years--and it shows. I guarantee he takes that job.

But don't they have superior players that no non BcS team could beat? O that's right, nope.

USC always gets great players. They do not always win. See Paul Hackett years and before. Plus, I expect UW to steal some of their recruits, Oregon too. USC is about to take a dip.