OT: Why Carroll will never coach in the pros again - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***mgteich*** · 12-02-2008, 04:03 PM

In the PAC10, refs can tell the difference between powder blues and maroon without it causing mayhem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

How is that intrusive?

You can't have two teams out there in home jerseys. I hate when I see that in high school ball, but if you start allowing college teams to wear all darks, it's going to cause mayhem.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-02-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fnordcircle

If by ruin you mean make it watchable, I have no idea why someone would want to do such a thing.

Playoffs are the most exciting aspect of professional sports. The BCS system is simply the most retarded idea I have ever heard of. Trot out whatever excuses you want for it, the end result is a less enjoyable product to watch which is, you know, sorta the whole goddamn point of spectator sports.

Well, given that I disagree with your initial premise, disagreement about the rest is no surprise.

***mgteich*** · 12-02-2008, 04:11 PM

I think you're wrong on both counts. Very few NFL coaches are treated like Carroll or Paterno or any of a dozen others. It is hard to imagine an NFL job where the coach's ego is stroked as much as in the NCAA.

Greed? I think you will find that top 32 NCAA coaches earn more than NFL coaches, when all sources of compensation are included. Note that you need to consider bonuses and guarantees as well as salayr, TV shows and so forth.

I can understand top NCAA coordinators or even position coaches moving to the NFL, but not head coaches from a major program.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double G

"to be honest, I don't know why any successful college coach would want to coach in the NFL........there are very few for whom it was worth their while"

Great point; one word, EGO. Actually a second word comes to mind; GREED..........

***SoCal Pmen*** · 12-02-2008, 04:11 PM

If Pete goes anywhere it will be to a West Coast team like the Niners or Seahawks.

***KontradictioN*** · 12-02-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Ohio State is 1-2 in Championship games this decade, not 0-32.

-Should be 0-3, Deus, if not for a horrible call and non-call by the ref in the Miami game. The 'Canes got robbed in that national championship.

Quote:

Did Oklahoma prove that the rest of the Big 12 is a joke compared to the mighty Sooners when it pasted Texas Tech?

-You just made my point for me. Oklahoma didn't prove anything. They pasted Texas Tech who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. The saying "any given Sunday" can also be applied to Saturdays in college football. How else do you think Oregon State is competing for it's conference's championship instead of USC? They deserve the championship but they may not deserve a higher bowl bid than USC just based on what the Trojans have done to everyone else. The fairEST way to determine that is a playoff system where the two would meet each other in conference play. The winner goes on to face the winner from another conference in interconference play.

Quote:

The NFL uses tiebreakers too. On might as easily ask why a winner should be decided by strength of schedule or points scored, etc...

-This is true but in the case of a three way tie, such as this one, who is to say where the losers of said tiebreakers would go? The computers? Who is to say that they are more deserving of whatever bowl they get into instead of one of the teams from the bowls that are behind THAT said bowl or vice versa?

Quote:

Another problem with the "Playoff!" people is that they ignore the injury factor. Four teams per conference? That's 20 teams just inside the Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, SEC and ACC, nevermind teams from other conferences and the independents.

-That could just as easily be fixed with an NIT-like tournament with conferences like the MAC and Conference-USA just like in college basketball. Is it fair? No. Nothing in sports could every really be considered completely fair. But it's about as fair as it's going to get. Remember, Deus, I didn't say that it wasn't going to be a cluster****.

Quote:

Maybe it's me being quirky, but I find that a lot of the fun about college football is that they DON'T always have a clear cut winner. Shared national titles and clouded national titles have led to all kinds of fun debates and discussions.

-Indeed.

tombonneau · 12-02-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

Is UCLA on board? Didn't say that in the article.

From the article:

Quote:

Carroll said the decision to wear home jerseys is not meant as a sign of disrespect to UCLA, adding that he discussed restoring the tradition with former UCLA coach Karl Dorrell and with current coach Rick Neuheisel.

"It's exciting," Neuheisel said. "I think wearing the home jerseys is a great tradition."

In the meantime, the Pacific-10 Conference has forwarded a request to NCAA football rules committee secretary Rogers Redding, seeking to change the rule. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said he expected to a decision by Tuesday.

So looks like not only is UCLA for it, but the PAC-10 is behind them as well. I'm sure it will be allowed.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-02-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

-Should be 0-3, Deus, if not for a horrible call and non-call by the ref in the Miami game. The 'Canes got robbed in that national championship.

Patriots v. Broncos in 2005
Patriots v. Colts in 2006
Patriots v. Giants in 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

-You just made my point for me. Oklahoma didn't prove anything. They pasted Texas Tech who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. The saying "any given Sunday" can also be applied to Saturdays in college football. How else do you think Oregon State is competing for it's conference's championship instead of USC? They deserve the championship but they may not deserve a higher bowl bid than USC just based on what the Trojans have done to everyone else. The fairEST way to determine that is a playoff system where the two would meet each other in conference play. The winner goes on to face the winner from another conference in interconference play.

Staying in the big 12 with the trio:

How will it be fair for the 4 teams to be in a playoff where two will face off and the third will have a much easier game and an advantage when they face off in the next round? As for the Oregon State question, it's really quite simple: USC lost a game that it should have won. The Trojans have nobody to blame but themselves. The only teams with anything approaching a realistic gripe are the undefeated teams that get ignored if they aren't in the major conferences. They can at least point out that they've not lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

-This is true but in the case of a three way tie, such as this one, who is to say where the losers of said tiebreakers would go? The computers? Who is to say that they are more deserving of whatever bowl they get into instead of one of the teams from the bowls that are behind THAT said bowl or vice versa?

You have to set out parameters for your tiebreakers and, again, no matter what you choose, there will always be another way that could have been chosen. It's the same in the NFL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

-That could just as easily be fixed with an NIT-like tournament with conferences like the MAC and Conference-USA just like in college basketball. Is it fair? No. Nothing in sports could every really be considered completely fair. But it's about as fair as it's going to get. Remember, Deus, I didn't say that it wasn't going to be a cluster****

But why would I want to subject myself to such a system when it would be worse than one currently in place and a logistical nightmare on top of that?

PatsFaninAZ · 12-02-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

You have to set out parameters for your tiebreakers and, again, no matter what you choose, there will always be another way that could have been chosen. It's the same in the NFL.

I don't think it's really the same. It's true that no matter where you draw the line, there will always be someone on the outside-looking-in side of the line. But if there were, say, and 8 team NCAAF playoff, I don't see much of an issue. Will there be years where number 9 could say, "hey, I deserve to be number 8?" I guess, but that's not too compelling of an argument. I think year after year after year it's been pretty conclusively shown that there is just no way to whittle it down to just 2 teams who are the most worthy to get a shot. It's often 3, 4 or rarely 5 -- I don't remember it ever being too much more than that, so 8 should be fine.

***Deus Irae*** · 12-02-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFaninAZ

I don't think it's really the same. It's true that no matter where you draw the line, there will always be someone on the outside-looking-in side of the line. But if there were, say, and 8 team NCAAF playoff, I don't see much of an issue. Will there be years where number 9 could say, "hey, I deserve to be number 8?" I guess, but that's not too compelling of an argument. I think year after year after year it's been pretty conclusively shown that there is just no way to whittle it down to just 2 teams who are the most worthy to get a shot. It's often 3, 4 or rarely 5 -- I don't remember it ever being too much more than that, so 8 should be fine.

Sorry, but the college basketball tournament shows you to be wrong. No matter what number you use for the cutoff, you will always have weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's just a normal by-product of an exclusionary system.

***PittPatriot*** · 12-02-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double G

"to be honest, I don't know why any successful college coach would want to coach in the NFL........there are very few for whom it was worth their while"

Great point; one word, EGO. Actually a second word comes to mind; GREED..........

To me, Pete Carroll = Roy Williams = Coach K. Guys who are at the top of their profession and make millions doing it - so why give it up?
These guys make over a million in base and probably even more in Nike endorsements. On top of that, they are leaders in their community and have the ability to shape the lives of young men forever. I think it is bigger than Professional Coaching.

Besides the 2 I name above, I think 2 of the greatest active coaches in basketball are Rick Pitino and Larry Brown. Pitino ruined his legacy while ruining the Celtics and Brown is in the process of ruining his by sticking around in the NBA instead of the NCAA.