USC's Carroll intersted in Falcons opening: but why would he go to the Pros where he's a proven winner in the college ranks,and a loser in the pros?
posted by Ghastly1 to football at 02:49 PM - 28 comments
And why would the Falcons take another chance on a college coach after getting burned with Petrino?
posted by TheQatarian at 03:21 PM on January 10
Why would Carroll go back to the pros after his debacles in NY and NE and his pretty amazing run with the Trojans? Arthur Blank can say he's interested in Carroll, Parcells or Tiger Woods, don't mean any of them will be working in Atlanta.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:33 PM on January 10
but why would he go to the Pros where he's a proven winner in the college ranks,and a loser in the pros To prove that he can win in the pros. What else can he do at USC? I don't think he'll go, but maybe he wants a challenge.
posted by brainofdtrain at 03:34 PM on January 10
Carroll still has the Reggie Bush/accepting-money-in-college thing hanging around, and that could bring USC down for a while. Besides this, Blank knows getting Carroll, the top coach in the college ranks, would be a huge win for a Falcons team that's in shambles. Carroll going to this putrid team also means they'd willingly give him all the control he desires. From all I've been hearing, leaving the NFL before with people still saying he couldn't cut it still eats at Carroll. If he gets that job, I seriously doubt, after the Petrino debacle, that Blank would give him the axe no matter what happens in the future.
posted by dyams at 03:41 PM on January 10
How about loads of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$? That usually changes most minds. Five to seven million a year, coach a few years, win or lose, retire before 60 years old, not to shabby.
posted by RA at 04:17 PM on January 10
their are better teams to go to than the Falcons, who are a absolute mess.
posted by rockstar2001 at 04:40 PM on January 10
for some people, yes loads of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ makes all the difference in the world, but pete carroll has never seemed to be that guy. i think if he goes, it will be for a new challenge. he has dominated the pac 10, and most of the college ranks for a few years now, and showes no signs of slowing down. maybe he wants to see if he can build a team from scratch in the league. that said, i think hes a fool if he does leave the sweetest gig in college sports, in favor of a crappy team with no success in the foreseeable future, but what the hell do i know. i write on these sites, he's the subject of them.
posted by elijahin at 04:58 PM on January 10
Money probably is the motivating factor if and when he decides to make the jump.But why go to the pros?I don't know what his salary is at USC,but I'm sure it's not chump change.Plus the job security he has in Southern Cal. He's known for not being able to coach at the pro level.Be smart Pete.You won't last long in Atlanta or any other Pro city!!
posted by Ghastly1 at 06:08 PM on January 10
their (There) are better teams to go to than the Falcons, who are a(n) absolute mess. This is why I don't understand his interest. With his pro record, he might at least go to a mediocre team so he can have a chance. So the question I have is, are there any mediocre teams looking for a new head coach? Yet? Pete should give himself a chance and stop this Falcons nonsense.
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 07:28 PM on January 10
Besides making a lot of money, I think that Carroll would have a lot to lose by going to the pros. Failure once again could be a career death-blow, at least as professional ranks are concerned. And then he'd have to come back to the college ranks and start from virtual scratch. If it were me, I would weigh the pros and cons in favor of USC. Southern California, winning program, the opportunity to shape young people's lives for the better. And all them hot college chicks! (OK, sorry about that. Pete Carroll probably wouldn't even think along those lines.)
posted by THX-1138 at 07:34 PM on January 10
I think the other side of the coin (as opposed to "Pete Carroll should look for a better team so he doesn't totally stink it up in the pros for all time") is that maybe at this point only a truly desperate NFL team is looking to hire him as a head coach, and thus, enter the Falcons. But I'm not sure Pete's stock has fallen to that level yet.
posted by LionIndex at 07:53 PM on January 10
Tex, who says Carroll is the one with the interest? From the reports I read, it's Blank who has interest in Carroll rather than the other way around. For instance, say the Giants lose, especially badly, to Dallas and Coughlin finally gets the boot (something rumored after almost every season he's been in charge), well that would probably be more interesting to Pete but Atlanta? I don't see that.
posted by billsaysthis at 08:07 PM on January 10
From the reports I read, it's Blank who has interest in Carroll rather than the other way around. Exactly. Here's what it says in the article: A person familiar with Carroll's thinking, though, said it appeared the coach is "headed toward a 'no thanks' " in response to Blank's inquiry. If Blank or any other NFL owner wants to speak with him, the smart thing to do is listen. But I suspect that Coach Pete will stay at USC unless and until a truly memorable opportunity comes his way. As far as the money issue, what's better? 3 to 4 years in the NFL at 7 million per? Or 15- 20 more years at USC where his salary is a minimum of 3 million per and will continue to rise. Plus, of course, the lifestyle he enjoys versus the grind of being an NFL coach.
posted by cjets at 08:21 PM on January 10
I believe that Pete Caroll will go to the pros, but I doubt it will be the hapless Falcons. They just can't seem to catch a break can they? But, I have read the newest set of allegations that detail Lloyd Lake's claims that he even has taped conversations with Reggie Bush and Lamar Griffin that validates his story about the new book the "Tarnished Heisman". I think that will be what drives him from USC, not the Falcons. But, I do see him possibly taking on another gig like the Washington Redskins -urgh. I would hate to see him there, but I would think he would be insane not to. I believe he will forfeit wins and that USC will loose their National Title (Not to mention Bush loosing the Heisman). Why should he stay? I think they have the goods on him and it seems to be gaining speed. They are talking about 300,000 in money and gifts during his sophmore and junior seasons. Also claims that USC coaches were aware are surfacing. Whatever he does, it will probably be next year at best. I don' t think they will be a serious BCS contender unless Sanchez is really, really good. He continuously lands the top talent, but only one championship so far. I guess we'll see.
posted by Mickster at 09:28 PM on January 10
He continuously lands the top talent, but only one championship so far. Huh? That's two championships. Six straight years as Pac Ten Champs or Co-Champs. Six straight years going to a BCS bowl. 5-1 in those BCS bowls(with the only loss being the classic 41-38 defeat to Vince Young's Texas in the Rose Bowl). He's had an overall record of of 76-14 at USC, 70-8 in the last six years. And in the last six years, USC has finished #4, #1, #1, #2, #4, #2. Oh yeah, you're right, he's a great recruiter too.
posted by cjets at 11:08 PM on January 10
This is probably a good place for me to re-try linking to this profile of Carroll. Fantastic read, but the link in my post died last time.
posted by yerfatma at 06:25 AM on January 11
According to the BCS, LSU was the National Champion that 1st year. I realize that the AP voted USC #1, but that doesn't mean they were the "National Champions" - maybe co-champions. LSU defeated OU in of course - LA and the Superdome 21-14. I don't want to disrespect LSU and their accomplishments, so they both lay claim and will have to have co-ownership. I know that they are owners of one outright championship, but they are at best champs for 1 1/2. You have to give LSU their credits too. That's the system. As for the Pac 10???? Not a very strong conference with the exception of about 2-3 teams. UCLA is not really a contender, but beat USC. Oregon has been good, but when they lost Dixon they were done. Arizona State was exposed as not the real deal. I don't know of any other team that can say they are of the caliber of even a second tier SEC or Big 12 team. I realize that Stanford beat them in the Coluseum (a 41 pt. underdog) or they might have had a chance this year. Not trying to disrespect them, just that they aren't "the" premiere team in all the land. Talk to the LSU fans or the Gator fans. SEC has finished number 1 in the past two seasons. I do think they would have had a GREAT chance to derail the Tigers, but that loss kept them out of it. I believe they are rated preseason number 1 by some so called experts next year, but you still have to consider the Reggie Bush thing. My point is more about the scandal on Bush than 1 championship vs. 1 1/2 or 2.
posted by Mickster at 07:46 AM on January 11
So the question I have is, are there any mediocre teams looking for a new head coach? Yet? The Redskins are looking for a coach right now.
posted by bender at 08:19 AM on January 11
I realize that the AP voted USC #1, but that doesn't mean they were the "National Champions" - maybe co-champions. LSU defeated OU in of course - LA and the Superdome 21-14. I don't want to disrespect LSU and their accomplishments, so they both lay claim and will have to have co-ownership I know that they are owners of one outright championship, but they are at best champs for 1 1/2. This is a conversation about USC, not LSU. They had a share of the national chanpionship as well. SC, by virtue of its having a share of the national championship has two national championships. This is not like sharing sacks. It's a national championship. I've never heard it referred to as a 1/2 of a championship before. SEC has finished number 1 in the past two seasons. So now you're comparing USC to all of the SEC? Hardly seems like a fair comparison. As for the Pac 10???? Not a very strong conference with the exception of about 2-3 teams. Here we go, the PAC-10 plays soft football argument. Here's Jeff Sagarin's ratings for the conferences. 1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.99 81.83 ( 1) 12 2 PAC-10 (A) = 79.47 79.63 ( 2) 10 3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.62 78.35 ( 3) 12 4 BIG EAST (A) = 77.46 77.12 ( 4) 8 5 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.21 74.98 ( 5) 12 6 BIG TEN (A) = 74.63 74.17 ( 6) 11 The PAC-10 is second. Also, if USC is from such a weak conference, then they would not be 5-1 in BCS bowls And if USC is not a premiere team, then find me a coach or team who has equaled their accomplishments over the last 6 seasons. You implied that Coach Carroll did not do much with all of the outstanding talent. Find me a coach that has done more over a six year period than he has.
posted by cjets at 09:16 AM on January 11
Not trying to disrespect them, just that they aren't "the" premiere team in all the land. And that's not what I said. You implied that that Coach Carroll was not doing all he could with his talent. Here's your quote again: He continuously lands the top talent, but only one championship so far. I completely disagree. And that's why I responded. And though I didn't say they were the "premiere" team in the country, I would certainly say that they are one of the premiere teams in the country.
posted by cjets at 11:02 AM on January 11
Your link worked just fine, fatty, and I read it through (thank goodness for our alternate Friday off). Two points particularly interested me. First, I had heard of Carroll's sorties through the ghettos of Los Angeles, but I had thought they were for recruiting purposes. While that may be so in a larger sense (image, perhaps), he is not likely to gain too many recruits among the crap shooters or dopers. Thus, I'll ascribe better motives to his visits. The second point is, I think, the most revealing about his desire to once again coach in the NFL. If you look at the last 3 paragraphs of Reason 13, the writer perceives that Carroll has not abandoned the idea despite his success at USC. I think that Carroll might have the same compulsion that drives some people to run for President (or for that matter to try any seemingly impossible task). That is, the task is there, and I'll try it just because it is there, and I want to prove that I am capable of doing it.
posted by Howard_T at 11:35 AM on January 11
Ok cjets, I think you are a bit sensitive to your USC team. To say they are two time national champs, that is inaccurate. LSU was the BCS champs the year that the AP voted USC #1. Years ago when Colorado and Georgia Tech were "Co-National Champs", they made reference that they would both lay claim and it was like a split championship - thus the reference. So, I will recant my statement and give them their accolades. Co-national champs for the one year and outright champs for the other. And, ok if you use Jeff Sagarins ratings. You can find many to support what you wish. I believe you are too biased in this discussion to be objective. I have said nothing negative about USC except maybe the Reggie Bush issues. AS for the Pac 10, I don't think it is as strong as the other conferences and I have a right to my opinion. They have about 3 really good teams and that is it. I do believe that Carroll is a premiere coach and the issue is whether or not he should go to the NFL. I stated my opinion and it has nothing to do with USC. I think they are as good as any team around. I even went as far as to say that they had a GREAT chance if they would have been matched with LSU. I also never said he wasn't doing all he could with his talent. I said he is routinely in the top in recruiting (heck, who wouldn't want to go to SC?), but he hasn't got but the one sole championship to show for it = plus a co-national championship (better?). Also, I was comparing the Pac 10 to the SEC. You are the one making the comparrisons of USC vs. the SEC. I never said that. I realize you said they (USC) were 5-1 in the BCS games and that's great. But, it doesn't make the conference any better. Even by your own rating, you have SEC above the Pac 10. Now, back to the issues of the blog - do I think Pete Carroll will leave USC for the NFL = yes. I don't know that he will take the Falcons job and I would question his sanity to leave USC for that team. But, I do see him leaving for the NFL in 1-2 years. If the NCAA continues to dig (as does the PAC 10) into the Reggie Bush thing, they would have to forfeit their games, their national title and bowl victories while Reggie was playing. They did so to OU and Coach Stoops and his star QB only took about $7-8,000. In the case of Bush, we are talking about nearly 300,000. They even have taped conversations and if you don't think they will bury USC and Bush, look at what they did to OU, took away their victories that Bomar played in and their victories from the coach and team. And as for coaches that are as good, Right under Pete in winning percentage is Bob Stoops and Urban Meyer. Stoops has been there for 9 years though and Urban for 5-6. You have some very good points, but you seemed to have gotten your feathers ruffled by mentioning USC. If that is your team (seems to be), great. They are a great team and I give them the respect they have earned. I believe they could have beaten LSU this year. But, the issue is if the coach leaves for the NFL and given the surrounding investigations and offers from rich NFL owners - he just might.
posted by Mickster at 01:39 PM on January 11
To say they are two time national champs, that is inaccurate. So, I will recant my statement and give them their accolades. Co-national champs for the one year and outright champs for the other. You seem to want to have it both ways. They are two time national champs and one of the championships was shared with LSU. To say they are not two-time national champs is inaccurate. I think you are a bit sensitive to your USC team. That's just a weak argument. If you want to come on this blog and make comments about Pete Carroll, be prepared to back them up or recant them. You've done neither. Here's your first quote which was what I responded to. He continuously lands the top talent, but only one championship so far. I guess we'll see. After I responded to that, you came back with the usual crap about the Pac-10 and this argument about them not being two-time champs. So stop with my sensitivity or ruffled feathers, that's just lame. USC has been one of the best college football programs (If not the best) over the last six years. Pete Carroll is the main reason for that. If you want to disagree with me, fine. Back it up. I'm happy to have that discussion. But save the ruffled feathers and sensitivity crap for your therapist. And as far as the Bush issue, they've been talking about this for three years. The guy who wrote the book is an ex-gangster, an ex-con, and not credible. As well as trying to promote his book. Even if they prove Bush was taking money, they still need to prove that USC should have known about it.
posted by cjets at 03:12 PM on January 11
Mickster, even if the Bush thing unrolls as you state, how does that change Pete Carroll's success? Sure, the win/loss record would change and the BCS Trophy would go elsewhere (though where is interesting) but Carroll is not the one guilty of any violations nor did Bush's actions matter on the field except, perhaps, in that he had better peace of mind and was a better player for it. These are not point-shaving, recruiting or drug violations. If anything, I think should this calamity (as a USC alum) come to pass that Carroll will be more likely to stay just to win a BCS trophy that isn't tainted.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:18 PM on January 11
You have some very good points, but you seemed to have gotten your feathers ruffled by mentioning USC. If that is your team (seems to be), great. They are a great team and I give them the respect they have earned. I believe they could have beaten LSU this year. I'll give you props for saying this, Mickster. And I'm not looking to start a battle with you. But when your answer to my post is to claim that I'm too sensitive, too biased and have gotten my feathers ruffled, then you're discrediting me and the points I'm making. And that pisses me off.
posted by cjets at 03:47 PM on January 11
Which I believe you've already pointed out. There really isn't a need to say it twice. Without Carroll there is no absolutely dominant USC football program. They may have been good but I don't think they achieve the same success without him at the helm. They have been the most consistantly dominant team of these past few years, and while cases can be made for teams from one specific year that were better than USC (Texas is an obvious example) there isn't a single FBS program that has been more successful over these past few years than USC.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:10 PM on January 11
Which I believe you've already pointed out. There really isn't a need to say it twice. Believe it or not, it was actually an attempt at a truce. It just kinda got away from me there in the end.
posted by cjets at 07:15 PM on January 11
Is the grind that much different of a pro coach versus the college coach? There is recruiting at the college level but there is less games (well not that many less).
posted by jc at 03:09 PM on January 12
You're not logged in. Please log in or register.
Copyright © 2017 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.